|
|
Post by kjs on Apr 17, 2019 9:21:13 GMT -6
The Book of Daniel with its so-called Additions has a special place in the Septuagint.
Since it appears Jesus quoted the version of Daniel that was in the Septuagint, I figured it would be the best "translation" to use in some of seventy week discussions.
Color Me Surprise -- when I discover the Septuagint has two versions of Daniel.....
The Link above takes you to both versions ... side-by-side even..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 22:26:12 GMT -6
The Septuagint had many versions, depending on the city, ie Alexandria, Antioch etc....many versions which is why Jerome elected to translate from Hebrew source texts. The question was which version of the Septuagint was being referred to? The current version was conglomerated on in the 15th century or so, but I could be mistaken. Daniel was written in large part in Aramaic, not Greek.....but we dont have key portions of Daniel in the DSS. I prefer the Masoretic text or the Douay Rheims version over the Septuagint polyglot for Daniel..... The greatest congruence in Daniel is with the Hebrew or Aramaic, approaching 90% I recall, with the Septuagint Polyglot, maybe 10%? Not saying this guy is right...in fact, I am a little shy of posting his article, but he makes some valid points: www.scionofzion.com/septuagint2.htm |
|
|
|
Post by kjs on May 17, 2019 14:47:52 GMT -6
The Septuagint had many versions, depending on the city, ie Alexandria, Antioch etc....many versions which is why Jerome elected to translate from Hebrew source texts. The question was which version of the Septuagint was being referred to? The current version was conglomerated on in the 15th century or so, but I could be mistaken. Daniel was written in large part in Aramaic, not Greek.....but we dont have key portions of Daniel in the DSS. I prefer the Masoretic text or the Douay Rheims version over the Septuagint polyglot for Daniel..... The greatest congruence in Daniel is with the Hebrew or Aramaic, approaching 90% I recall, with the Septuagint Polyglot, maybe 10%? Not saying this guy is right...in fact, I am a little shy of posting his article, but he makes some valid points: www.scionofzion.com/septuagint2.htm
The website you posted which has some interesting and possibly even correct "proofs" -- but when you finish the article and "Hit The Back" Link at the bottom of page....
You end up reading "JUNK" like this ... Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we use not the Textus Receive! Why I am King James Only? The History of the King James Bible: God's Perfect Word
Here is the deal ... NO TRANSLATION is better or worse than any other translation out there .......
However, IF one wished to PROVE one version over another ...... one could simply show the multiple errors found within the King James Version (1611 version) and prove this version did not come straight from God!
Here is a SMALL LIST of "Corrections" between just the 1611 version and the 1769 version
Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”
In 1814 the KJV 1769 version was replaced with the KJV (Authorized Version)
AND this wonderful ever evolving KJV keeps changing until now days you have the New King James Version .........
BUT the most silliest thing around .... is the belief that when ALL Translations -- are in Agreement 98% of the time (and the fact that the "differences" are noted in footnotes or parenthesis in the text -- it is kind of like does it really MATTER?
What I am trying to say is -- if you are going to "prove" your favorite version / translation is better than all others -- (and spend multiple pages doing so) Please explain how that is a good use of your time -- proving that only 2% differences make yours better -- when those differences are already known?
|
|
|
|
Post by fitz on May 17, 2019 16:27:06 GMT -6
Warning: Dr. Phil Stringer...If I am not mistaken he is associated with the IFB cult and appears to adhere to KJV-Onlyism...which is pure heresy (IMHO).
My .02 on this guys website, not trying to derail the thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 17:32:02 GMT -6
I agree with both of you....which is why I qualified my post......he made some good points, but in a sea of questionable stuff. In any case, I am not trying to prove one version is better than another, and if I conveyed that, my apologies as it was not intended. I prefer the Masoretic or Vulgate over the Septuagint for the OT in some areas, and the Septuagint in others. All versions have drawbacks, and much of it is subjective interpretation. I have used the NASB since I was saved in college....and it follows the MT. But, a weakness is that the earliest versions date ~1000 AD.....Jerome's Vulgate was based on earlier source texts...but the weakness is we don't have them. The Septuagint has earlier source texts, but there are numerous versions which differ from one another....the DSS are amazing, but according to Tov there were proto-Hebraic texts and variations even back then. So, it is a fascinating study imo.....
Nelson Walters, a close friend, prefers the Septuagint, while I prefer the MT or Douay Rheims OT...not saying he is wrong and I am right, or vice versa
I also agree the congruence of the versions is amazing! There are some interesting differences in specific areas, but are interesting to study....One verse of particular interest to me is Deut 32:8....the DSS, MT, and Septuagint are all different, but the Septuagint is closer to the DSS in this instance. Dr. Tov published an article in Biblical Archaeology on this verse, and Michael Heiser has written on it as well....Dr Tov is careful to state that the "correct" version is not really known, and that there is subjectivity in any analysis, which supports what kjs was saying...there is no proof any is better than the other....
Another interesting verse is Hosea 5:14, where harpazo is used in the Septuagint, but not in the rendering of the MT
|
|
