Different versions of the bible.

[Stann]

A Christian refers to a follower of Jesus Christ who may be a Catholic, Protestant, Gnostic, Mormon, Evangelical, Anglican or Orthodox, or follower of another branch of the religion. A Catholic is a Christian who follows the Catholic religion as transmitted through the succession of Popes.


Is this true? I was googling around and Alpha And Omega is supposedly the best "transcribed" bible, true to the translations of the times. Which goes along with what I have always said.....some of the gospels were left out, some not transcribed correctly due to the agendas of the times, etc. So I go googling and there are MANY bibles with different "versions". So which one is the best, in your opinion?



What version of the Bible do y'all read?

And finally, my last question for awhile:

What does it mean when a passage in the bible states that only 144,000 will be sent to Jesus when He appears? Surely there are more than that amount of people that are good and not evil?

The Jefferson Bible, the only thing in it are the words Christ is purportedly said to have spoke. Leaving out all the tribalism and hatred of the old testament really points out what Christianity should be.

 

[Clyde 154]

And you are showing your ignorance of anthropology. The Septuagint was only used by Hellenistic Jews. It was forbidden in the Temple and not taught at bethgashepher. (Grade school) and of course it was denigrated in Bethmidrash. (High school/college)

The language commonly spoken was a Hebrew/Aramaic blend. Greek was for the hated Romans. (Being multi-lingual was common in a "crossroads" country)

The first martyr Stephen was famous for his citations of the Septuagint and his style of explaining the scriptures just before he was taken outside and stoned for speaking in such a blasphemous fashion. He was of course a Hellenistic Jew. He was never raised in Israel, he only moved there after adulthood and was never taught in the Jewish public school system.

And I never claimed that a person needs to be a scholar of ancient languages to understand the core components of scriptures or the basics of what should be taken away from what is written...
But just like the major gaff you made in your false accusations demonstrate... don't make a major out of a minor or go beyond what is actually written.
That's a hard and fast rule of hermeneutics.

You know when someone can't defend their argumentative position? When the personal ad hominem insults begin with the first sentence......pointing out HOW SMART THEY ARE and HOW STUPID YOU MUST BE........


Hardly the case....the ignorance is on your part. Constantine...... consistency gets blamed for things that he didn't do such as corrupting the scriptures. When anyone presents the false premise that the Bible was written in HEBREW and there are no valid translations, the majority of the time they are attempting to mold the scriptures around their doctrine instead of allowing the scriptures to establish doctrine.

You are claiming there is no evidence the New Testament was written in Greek, or that Jesus never quoted the Old Testament from the Septuagint translation? First we have found 5300 Greek manuscripts and over 13000 other fragments written in Greek of the New Testament records. There are another 8000 manuscripts found translated into other languages, such as Syriac, Armenian.......etc.,

Yet......"IF" Hebrew was the original language for all the books of the Bible you'd expect to find "numerous" copies.........what's missing? Numerous copies of Hebrew manuscripts........thus you have based your opinionated and biased argument upon on MISSING evidence, not evidence found.

With the science of "comparative analysis" when a manuscript is found translated into another language it becomes very apparent that it was translated, even the best translation leave subtle clues that the work in not in the original language.....such as HEBREW. That's simply because each language has its distinct and different word selections, grammar rules, and Idioms (i.e., manner of speaking). The ONE THING that most scholars agree on? ALL the BOOKS of the New Testament was translated from "KOINE GREEK". Some argue different and attempt to pick certain books they claim were HEBREW.....or it was forbidden for the Jewish Hierarchy to use the Septuagint translations.....but they forget one thing.......the BIBLE is not ONE BOOK it is a collection of books authorized by at least 30 different people ranging from sheep herders to physicians, to tax collectors........and it was the Jewish Hierarchy that rejected the messages that Jesus was preaching...........


Now you are making a claim that this rejected doctrine of Jesus was forbidden by the Hierarchy to speak from the Septuagint translation of the Old Scriptures? You have presented the "quint essential" LOGICAL FALLACY.

There are many quotations found in the New Testament that indicate they were based upon the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.....with but a few modifications in order to translate the original an format it into the Greek rules of grammar and Idioms.

Next...........the GREEK manuscripts are not translations.......but copies of the original as pointed out via the rules of grammar and comparative analysis. If they were translations they would show differences in wording such as you will find when the Greek is translated into the KING JAMES..........which show different words than another translation like.....the New American Standared.......yet the content subject matter is never lost in translation.

You claim that Jesus never quoted from the Septuagint Old Testament.....but........the science of archeological comparative analysis demonstrates something different. Some of these sources have Jesus directly quoting from the Old Testament in GREEK. A source found that predates Constantine was found......dated at 100 AD. Its called the "John Ryland" fragment of the book of John. That particular fragment contains part of a passage that has Jesus' name in Greek, not Hebrew..... And another fragment dated at 165 AD, also contains quotes of Jesus in GREEK, fragment P4, dated about 200 AD finds Jesus' name in Greek.

Reality.........there are over 340 different quotes from the Septuagint Old Testament found in the New Testament, but only 33 instances where the New Testament quotes from the "Masoretic Hebrew"......in fact by a great majority anytime the Old Testament is quoted or referenced in the New Testament......its from the Septuagint or Greek translation......to include many quotes where Jesus referenced the Old Testament.......

Again......if it good enough for God incarnate......its good enough for the world.

 

[JohnDB]

Hardly the case....the ignorance is on your part. Constantine...... consistency gets blamed for things that he didn't do such as corrupting the scriptures. When anyone presents the false premise that the Bible was written in HEBREW and there are no valid translations, the majority of the time they are attempting to mold the scriptures around their doctrine instead of allowing the scriptures to establish doctrine.

You are claiming there is no evidence the New Testament was written in Greek, or that Jesus never quoted the Old Testament from the Septuagint translation? First we have found 5300 Greek manuscripts and over 13000 other fragments written in Greek of the New Testament records. There are another 8000 manuscripts found translated into other languages, such as Syriac, Armenian.......etc.,

Yet......"IF" Hebrew was the original language for all the books of the Bible you expect to find "numerous" copies.........what's missing? Numerous copies of Hebrew manuscripts........thus you have based your opinionated and biased argument upon on MISSING evidence, not evidence found.

With the science of "comparative analysis" when a manuscript is found translated into another language it becomes very apparent that it was translated, even the best translation leave subtle clues that the work in not in the original language.....such as HEBREW. That's simply because each language has its distinct and different word selections, grammar rules, and Idioms (i.e., manner of speaking). The ONE THING that most scholars agree on? ALL the BOOKS of the New Testament was translated from "KOINE GREEK". Some argue different and attempt to pick certain books they claim were HEBREW.....or it was forbidden for the Jewish Hierarchy to use the Septuagint translations.....but they forget one thing.......the BIBLE is not ONE BOOK it is a collection of books authorized by at least 30 different people ranging from sheep herders to physicians, to tax collectors........and it was the Jewish Hierarchy that rejected the messages that Jesus was preaching...........


Now you are making a claim that this rejected doctrine of Jesus was forbidden by the Hierarchy to speak from the Septuagint translation of the Old Scriptures? You have presented the "quint essential" LOGICAL FALLACY.

There are many quotations found in the New Testament that indicate they were based upon the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.....with but a few modifications in order to translate the original an format it into the Greek rules of grammar and Idioms.

Next...........the GREEK manuscripts are not translations.......but copies of the original as pointed out via the rules of grammar and comparative analysis. If they were translations they would show differences in wording such as you will find when the Greek is translated into the KING JAMES..........which show different words than another translation like.....the New American Standared.......yet the content subject matter is never lost in translation.

You claim that Jesus never quoted from the Septuagint Old Testament.....but........the science of archeological comparative analysis demonstrates something different. Some of these sources have Jesus directly quoting from the Old Testament in GREEK. A source found that predates Constantine was found......dated at 100 AD. Its called the "John Ryland" fragment of the book of John. That particular fragment contains part of a passage that has Jesus' name in Greek, not Hebrew..... And another fragment dated at 165 AD, also contains quotes of Jesus in GREEK, fragment P4, dated about 200 AD finds Jesus' name in Greek.

Reality.........there are over 340 different quotes from the Septuagint Old Testament found in the New Testament, but only 33 instances where the New Testament quotes from the "Masoretic Hebrew"......in fact by a great majority anytime the Old Testament is quoted or referenced in the New Testament......its from the Septuagint or Greek translation......to include many quotes where Jesus referenced the Old Testament.......

WOW....
How I said all the things you claim I have said is astounding me...
If you could provide evidence of my claiming these things you say I've said I would really be shocked.... because if anyone wants to look at my previous posts they wouldn't find anything resembling your claims.

And now that I think about it...
If you read study materials, scientific reports, commentaries, and the scriptures with the same level of reading comprehension as my previous posts....

Just saying. Maybe you should refrain from telling what you "know".

BTW....the Tenakh....The Hebrew Bible (just the Old Testament) that the Jews use to this day is still in Hebrew. The Masoretes were extremely diligent in preserving and sharing the original Hebrew texts. There are some other sects of Judaism throughout the centuries that have done so as well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are also written by the same sect John the Baptist was a member of before he began his prophetic your of duty. They were known as Essenes.
Of course it was a given that he was going to be removed from their sect. (Apostasized)
They wore white and he wore camel hair. He offered ceremonial cleansing (baptisms) and Priesthood of every believer to those outside his group where they could ask for the forgiveness of sins without a priest or offering and the right to handle scriptures themselves instead of needing a Levite.

At any rate all the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew. None are in Greek. They also line up perfectly with all the other Hebrew manuscripts. (A few very minor differences coming from copyist errors)
The codex Sianiticus (which is from around 300AD and in Greek) The Masoretic Texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which predate Constantine) are all in agreement.... including the Egyptian manuscripts (all in Aramaic and Arabic) and Alexandrian texts and even some from Russia.
The least accurate are usually the Latin Vulgate...but there has been a few found in a few monasteries of auspicious age.


Then....
The books of Matthew and the book of Hebrews were both written originally in Hebrew. Matthew/Levi did the translation himself when he discovered that Hellenistic Jews wanted a copy they could read themselves. A similar story surrounds Bartholomew...and you definitely need to have an understanding of Sifre and Midrash to fully understand Hebrews...which weren't written in Greek until Centuries later. (And the Jews had a mixed bag of feelings about that too)

John is the only one who used Early Latin for his Gospel account and for his Apocalypse. Mark used koine Greek as he retold Peter's gospel account....all of the writers (including Paul) used the Septuagint as a translation guide and alluded to the scriptures they knew in Hebrew as translated by the Septuagint for a growing group of Greek Christians. Because they wanted to be understood and not place a heavy burden on the Goyim. This is seen regularly...they often don't quote the Septuagint precisely (occasionally they did) but only allude to those scriptures... because they didn't regularly use them.

And finally.... Jesus, as a schmeekha Rabbi would not speak Greek very often. He didn't talk to Romans or Greeks. He didn't come to them....only the Jews. He might have come FOR everyone but ONLY TO the Jews. Contact with anyone outside the Jews made him ceremoniously Unclean. And his recorded actual words are always Aramaic/Hebrew. The sermon on the mount is lousy Greek poetry but absolutely shockingly beautiful Aramaic Poetry.
What do you think God would do?

 

[Clyde 154]

WOW....
How I said all the things you claim I have said is astounding me...
If you could provide evidence of my claiming these things you say I've said I would really be shocked.... because if anyone wants to look at my previous posts they wouldn't find anything resembling your claims.

And now that I think about it...
If you read study materials, scientific reports, commentaries, and the scriptures with the same level of reading comprehension as my previous posts....

Just saying. Maybe you should refrain from telling what you "know".

BTW....the Tenakh....The Hebrew Bible (just the Old Testament) that the Jews use to this day is still in Hebrew. The Masoretes were extremely diligent in preserving and sharing the original Hebrew texts. There are some other sects of Judaism throughout the centuries that have done so as well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are also written by the same sect John the Baptist was a member of before he began his prophetic your of duty. They were known as Essenes.
Of course it was a given that he was going to be removed from their sect. (Apostasized)
They wore white and he wore camel hair. He offered ceremonial cleansing (baptisms) and Priesthood of every believer to those outside his group where they could ask for the forgiveness of sins without a priest or offering and the right to handle scriptures themselves instead of needing a Levite.

At any rate all the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew. None are in Greek. They also line up perfectly with all the other Hebrew manuscripts. (A few very minor differences coming from copyist errors)
The codex Sianiticus (which is from around 300AD and in Greek) The Masoretic Texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which predate Constantine) are all in agreement.... including the Egyptian manuscripts (all in Aramaic and Arabic) and Alexandrian texts and even some from Russia.
The least accurate are usually the Latin Vulgate...but there has been a few found in a few monasteries of auspicious age.


Then....
The books of Matthew and the book of Hebrews were both written originally in Hebrew. Matthew/Levi did the translation himself when he discovered that Hellenistic Jews wanted a copy they could read themselves. A similar story surrounds Bartholomew...and you definitely need to have an understanding of Sifre and Midrash to fully understand Hebrews...which weren't written in Greek until Centuries later. (And the Jews had a mixed bag of feelings about that too)

John is the only one who used Early Latin for his Gospel account and for his Apocalypse. Mark used koine Greek as he retold Peter's gospel account....all of the writers (including Paul) used the Septuagint as a translation guide and alluded to the scriptures they knew in Hebrew as translated by the Septuagint for a growing group of Greek Christians. Because they wanted to be understood and not place a heavy burden on the Goyim. This is seen regularly...they often don't quote the Septuagint precisely (occasionally they did) but only allude to those scriptures... because they didn't regularly use them.

And finally.... Jesus, as a schmeekha Rabbi would not speak Greek very often. He didn't talk to Romans or Greeks. He didn't come to them....only the Jews. He might have come FOR everyone but ONLY TO the Jews. Contact with anyone outside the Jews made him ceremoniously Unclean. And his recorded actual words are always Aramaic/Hebrew. The sermon on the mount is lousy Greek poetry but absolutely shockingly beautiful Aramaic Poetry.
What do you think God would do?

Hint: Intelligent people don't have to tell everyone how intelligent they are.......as I said, a great deal can be known when the first line consists of some personal ad hominem insult.
Parroting misinformation is not evidence. Example: You just claimed that Hebrews was not written in Greek until centuries after the Book of Hebrews? You single out the book of Hebrews because the author is not directly revealed as are the other canonized books of the New Testament......assuming there is no clue as to its authorship. Hints appear all throughout the book.

Hebrews (2:3-4) states the author was not a direct witness to Jesus' words while on earth....i.e, meaning the author was not one of the original apostles.....but someone who heard the apostles speak. For someone to hear an apostle speak......the author would have had to live during the early days of the church.

Hebrews (13:23-24) states it was written from Italy (a hint that it was not recorded in Hebrew) by a friend or associate of Timothy in Italy.

Hebrews (10:34, 13:19).......hints that the author is in prison.

Its true that the author must have been highly knowledgeable of the Hebrew language .......but nowhere is it made clear that the Book was written in Hebrew. Just like all the other letters that Paul is given credit.........Paul was indeed a great scholar of the Hebrew faith and language......but his letters have been demonstrated to be in GREEK.

The reason that Paul is given credit for this work even through he was not the original author is the same reason that he is given credit for the other letters/books (books that were actually put to pin by LUKE the physician)........the author's were TAUGHT BY PAUL indirectly by first hand students of Paul as suggested by "Origen"


Origen is quoted as such, "If I gave my opinion (which is far better of an opinion than someone from thousands of years removed from the original text), I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle (Paul), but the dictation and phraseology are those of who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by the teacher....therefore if any church (individual) holds that this (Hebrews) is a work of Paul....let it be commended......"

None of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Greek? This is simply a deflection......and does not prove in the least that the New Testament does not contain Jesus quoting from the Old Testament Greek translation. You declare that all the dead sea scrolls were written in MT (Hebrew) but do not mention anything about a comparative Analysis between fragments of the Book of Daniel..........and the dead sea scrolls.

As suggested by Bible Archeology which does not even support the idea the entire bible was divinely inspired. The Daniel scrolls published in 1955 were given by John C. Trevor as the Herodian period for 1QDana and the late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966, 232, 36) in other words these found fragments of manuscripts were dated around 60AD or earlier in the 1st century.
Whats important about these early manuscripts? When the book of Daniel is compared from the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Greek translation found to exist in 1008AD......a thousand years removed from one another.........it was found that nothing was lost from the translation fragments of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls the 60 AD find and the 1008 AD find.....it was the first time in history where a comparative analysis could take place with a 1000 year gap........and nothing was lost.

 

[JohnDB]

Hint: Intelligent people don't have to tell everyone how intelligent they are.......as I said, a great deal can be known when the first line consists of some personal ad hominem insult.
Parroting misinformation is not evidence. Example: You just claimed that Hebrews was not written in Greek until centuries after the Book of Hebrews? You single out the book of Hebrews because the author is not directly revealed as are the other canonized books of the New Testament......assuming there is no clue as to its authorship. Hints appear all throughout the book.

Hebrews (2:3-4) states the author was not a direct witness to Jesus' words while on earth....i.e, meaning the author was not one of the original apostles.....but someone who heard the apostles speak. For someone to hear an apostle speak......the author would have had to live during the early days of the church.

Hebrews (13:23-24) states it was written from Italy (a hint that it was not recorded in Hebrew) by a friend or associate of Timothy in Italy.

Hebrews (10:34, 13:19).......hints that the author is in prison.

Its true that the author must have been highly knowledgeable of the Hebrew language .......but nowhere is it made clear that the Book was written in Hebrew. Just like all the other letters that Paul is given credit.........Paul was indeed a great scholar of the Hebrew faith and language......but his letters have been demonstrated to be in GREEK.

The reason that Paul is given credit for this work even through he was not the original author is the same reason that he is given credit for the other letters/books (books that were actually put to pin by LUKE the physician)........the author's were TAUGHT BY PAUL indirectly by first hand students of Paul as suggested by "Origen"


Origen is quoted as such, "If I gave my opinion (which is far better of an opinion than someone from thousands of years removed from the original text), I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle (Paul), but the dictation and phraseology are those of who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by the teacher....therefore if any church (individual) holds that this (Hebrews) is a work of Paul....let it be commended......"

None of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Greek? This is simply a deflection......and does not prove in the least that the New Testament does not contain Jesus quoting from the Old Testament Greek translation. You declare that all the dead sea scrolls were written in MT (Hebrew) but do not mention anything about a comparative Analysis between fragments of the Book of Daniel..........and the dead sea scrolls.

As suggested by Bible Archeology which does not even support the idea the entire bible was divinely inspired. The Daniel scrolls published in 1955 were given by John C. Trevor as the Herodian period for 1QDana and the late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966, 232, 36) in other words these found fragments of manuscripts were dated around 60AD or earlier in the 1st century.
Whats important about these early manuscripts? When the book of Daniel is compared from the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Greek translation found to exist in 1008AD......a thousand years removed from one another.........it was found that nothing was lost from the translation fragments of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls the 60 AD find and the 1008 AD find.....it was the first time in history where a comparative analysis could take place with a 1000 year gap........and nothing was lost.

Still haven't changed my mind about you telling what you "know".

 

[irosie91]

The 144k has been in most versions I have read.

I think it refers to the recommended amount in your IRA