Author Topic: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff  (Read 885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peacemaker

  • No Profile Edits
  • OC.net guru
  • *
  • Posts: 1,408
Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« on: March 20, 2015, 11:08:14 PM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2015, 02:51:37 AM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 02:52:33 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Peacemaker

  • No Profile Edits
  • OC.net guru
  • *
  • Posts: 1,408
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2015, 02:55:48 AM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.

I've never heard of something so crazy. The KJV is still off compared to the Greek text which is what the Apostles used. I hope these people don't think that Apostles used a 16th century text.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2015, 03:10:35 AM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.

I've never heard of something so crazy. The KJV is still off compared to the Greek text which is what the Apostles used. I hope these people don't think that Apostles used a 16th century text.

Some believe that. Others believe the KJV "corrects" the text the Apostles wrote.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Peacemaker

  • No Profile Edits
  • OC.net guru
  • *
  • Posts: 1,408
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2015, 03:30:41 AM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.

I've never heard of something so crazy. The KJV is still off compared to the Greek text which is what the Apostles used. I hope these people don't think that Apostles used a 16th century text.

Some believe that. Others believe the KJV "corrects" the text the Apostles wrote.


Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2015, 07:30:34 AM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.

I've never heard of something so crazy. The KJV is still off compared to the Greek text which is what the Apostles used. I hope these people don't think that Apostles used a 16th century text.

Some believe that. Others believe the KJV "corrects" the text the Apostles wrote.



FWIW, Hebrew Scholar and Ancient Faith Radio blogger Eric Jobe recommends the KJV and NkJV as the ideal English language Bibles, but he is more in favor of the Masoretic Text than most.  Fr. John Whiteford,,while endorsing the Septuagint or Vulgate translations not using dynamic equivalence (I.e. The NIV), recommends the KJV for the New Testament.  And there are editions of the KJV corrected against the Septuagint, like the Psalter according to King David, which make for elegant liturgical services.  For that matter the Coverdale Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is from the Vulgate and very close to the Septuagint; the main problem is the divisions of it including psalm numbering are out of alignment, and its set for Mattins and Evensong over a leisurely monthly cycle rather than into Kathisma for the vigorous weekly/twice weekly cycle we use.  Although amusingly enough the Mattins and Evensong boundaries are surprisingly close to the Kathisma boundaries, the groupings are about the same size.  I've messed around with an Excel spreadsheet to create weekly recitations of the Anglican Psalter and monthly arrangements of the Orthodox psalter (the trick is to count the Stases); I do not suggest you use these but it was fun to plot out and helped me to get a better feel for the actual "unit size" of the divisions.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 10:03:37 PM by Mor Ephrem »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2015, 12:35:40 PM »
FWIW, Hebrew Scholar and Ancient Faith Radio blogger Eric Jobe recommends the KJV and NkJV as the ideal English language Bibles ...

Considering how little these two have in common, this is odd. The ESV and NKJV would be comparable; the KJV has no comparable contemporary version. The closest might be WEB, which shares more of KJV's textual sources than any other version; however, their translation choices are often very different.

"New King James Version" was a marketing choice, not a statement of any material facts, and with new releases the version comes closer and closer to the mainstream (NIV, ESV, &c.).
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2015, 12:37:54 PM »
FWIW, Hebrew Scholar and Ancient Faith Radio blogger Eric Jobe recommends the KJV and NkJV as the ideal English language Bibles ...

Considering how little these two have in common, this is odd. The ESV and NKJV would be comparable; the KJV has no comparable contemporary version. The closest might be WEB, which shares more of KJV's textual sources than any other version; however, their translation choices are often very different.

"New King James Version" was a marketing choice, not a statement of any material facts, and with new releases the version comes closer and closer to the mainstream (NIV, ESV, &c.).

http://www.tmbible.com/

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2015, 12:43:04 PM »
There are probably five or six of these attempts to copy edit the KJV to modern standards. ( 1 ) They aren't other versions, merely KJV with some spelling and grammar changes; ( 2 ) they are invariably awful, sometimes to the point of being littered with typos, but always with eccentric and inconsistent changes, because the people producing them ( a ) lack the professional credentials and ( b ) are usually motivated by petty ideology.

My brother and I are working on a similar project, but it's long work and of doubtful value compared to the value a good new translation would hold.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Bob2

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 761
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2015, 01:17:05 PM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Of course, everybody knows Slavonic is God's native tongue.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2015, 04:36:34 PM »
I myself generally just read the Douay Rheims if I am rushed for time, as St. Jerome sought a balanced and accurate translation of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate generally aligns with the Septuagint, but has the added advantage of being translated by an Orthodox saint who labored for years in Judea and compared Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek sources to get it right.  And the Douay Rheims is elegant.  But not quite as elegant as the Authorized Text.  Most KJV editions alas do not include the "apocrypha" which limits their usefulness as much as, if not more than, the Masoretic Old Testament, which Eric Jobe is a huge fan of.

My favourite translation is the Murdock translation of the West Syriac Peshitto, but he only did the New Testament.  So one still has to go hunting for a reliable Old Testament in decent ecclesiastical English.  The Lamsa tragically is in modern English throughout and I know some who question its veracity, and the association between it and the Peshitta Primacy crowd doesn't help.  I do love the Peshitta though having read interlingual word by word translations of it; it is an extremely conservative snapshot of the Greek text which shows us how pious fourth century Christians read the Bible, and it also is rather a strong endorsement of the Byzantine text type over the so called Alexandrian, the "Minority text" on which the NIV is based.

By the way, the Orthodox Study Bible which uses the NKJV or NRSV or some such is very useful for the commentary, the reading plan, the contributions by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware,,and the Morning and Evening Prayer it contains.  It would be more useful if it had the Book of Odes, and I personally find the text does not read smoothly, but rather, is ungainly due to the lack of the ecclesiastical style.  So if I have time, I read my KJV study Bible with its fundamentalist Calvinist literalist comments, then read the Orthodox Study Bible to get proper perspective.  But this does not work with the Psalter or any of the other hymnographic parts of the Bible, where style is paramount and where the differences between the MT and the LXX are a headache.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 04:41:18 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2015, 04:39:01 PM »
Between St. Jerome's work and the final Vulgate there is a gap of time and ideology.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2015, 04:44:00 PM »
Between St. Jerome's work and the final Vulgate there is a gap of time and ideology.

Well there have been a number of Vulgates; the current one isn't even based on St. Jerome but is a new translation.  But my understanding is the Douay Rheims is largely true to his edition.  It lacks his commentaries though and inserts annoying Scholastic commentary, however.

But in both it and the LXX, Psalm 95 vs 5 reads "The gods of the Gentiles are demons" or words to that effect.  I use the integrity of that verse as a quick reference to make sure I'm not using the Masoretic.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 04:45:18 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2015, 04:47:06 PM »
Between St. Jerome's work and the final Vulgate there is a gap of time and ideology.

Well there have been a number of Vulgates; the current one isn't even based on St. Jerome but is a new translation.  But my understanding is the Douay Rheims is largely true to his edition.  It lacks his commentaries though and inserts annoying Scholastic commentary, however.

Douay-Rheims would have had to be "true to" the official Vulgate, partly because of canons (which could have resulted in harsh punishments at that time) and partly because surely there was no access to St. Jerome's original work.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2015, 04:49:30 PM »
But in both it and the LXX, Psalm 95 vs 5 reads "The gods of the Gentiles are demons" or words to that effect.  I use the integrity of that verse as a quick reference to make sure I'm not using the Masoretic.

I don't understand how this relates. St. Jerome was a strong and undoubtedly the earliest proponent of using Masoretic texts.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2015, 04:52:50 PM »
If the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.


HAHAHAHA oh I hope that is a joke

Well, to some people... it isn't.

I've never heard of something so crazy. The KJV is still off compared to the Greek text which is what the Apostles used. I hope these people don't think that Apostles used a 16th century text.

Some believe that. Others believe the KJV "corrects" the text the Apostles wrote.



FWIW, Hebrew Scholar and Ancient Faith Radio blogger Eric Jobe recommends the KJV and NkJV as the ideal English language Bibles, but he is more in favor of the Masoretic Text than most.  Fr. John Whiteford,,while endorsing the Septuagint or Vulgate translations not using dynamic equivalence (I.e. The NIV), recommends the KJV for the New Testament.  And there are editions of the KJV corrected against the Septuagint, like the Psalter according to King David, which make for elegant liturgical services.  For that matter the Coverdale Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is from the Vulgate and very close to the Septuagint; the main problem is the divisions of it including psalm numbering are out of alignment, and its set for Mattins and Evensong over a leisurely monthly cycle rather than into Kathisma for the vigorous weekly/twice weekly cycle we use.  Although amusingly enough the Mattins and Evensong boundaries are surprisingly close to the Kathisma boundaries, the groupings are about the same size.  I've messed around with an Excel spreadsheet to create weekly recitations of the Anglican Psalter and monthly arrangements of the Orthodox psalter (the trick is to count the Stases); I do not suggest you use these but it was fun to plot out and helped me to get a better feel for the actual "unit size" of the divisions.

I honestly don't understand that, the KJV is such an inferior text compared to the modern versions. The NKJV is good, because it gives you the textual notes in the footnotes, but textually they are built on inferior manuscripts, seven 12th century or later manuscripts including textual content appropriated from the Vulgate.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2015, 04:55:14 PM »
FWIW, Hebrew Scholar and Ancient Faith Radio blogger Eric Jobe recommends the KJV and NkJV as the ideal English language Bibles ...

Considering how little these two have in common, this is odd. The ESV and NKJV would be comparable; the KJV has no comparable contemporary version. The closest might be WEB, which shares more of KJV's textual sources than any other version; however, their translation choices are often very different.

"New King James Version" was a marketing choice, not a statement of any material facts, and with new releases the version comes closer and closer to the mainstream (NIV, ESV, &c.).

The NKJV uses the exact same vorlage as the KJV. Just because the manner of translation is different doesn't mean the textual sources are.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2015, 04:58:19 PM »
I myself generally just read the Douay Rheims if I am rushed for time, as St. Jerome sought a balanced and accurate translation of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate generally aligns with the Septuagint, but has the added advantage of being translated by an Orthodox saint who labored for years in Judea and compared Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek sources to get it right.  And the Douay Rheims is elegant.  But not quite as elegant as the Authorized Text.  Most KJV editions alas do not include the "apocrypha" which limits their usefulness as much as, if not more than, the Masoretic Old Testament, which Eric Jobe is a huge fan of.

My favourite translation is the Murdock translation of the West Syriac Peshitto, but he only did the New Testament.  So one still has to go hunting for a reliable Old Testament in decent ecclesiastical English.  The Lamsa tragically is in modern English throughout and I know some who question its veracity, and the association between it and the Peshitta Primacy crowd doesn't help.  I do love the Peshitta though having read interlingual word by word translations of it; it is an extremely conservative snapshot of the Greek text which shows us how pious fourth century Christians read the Bible, and it also is rather a strong endorsement of the Byzantine text type over the so called Alexandrian, the "Minority text" on which the NIV is based.

I use the Douay from time to time, I have it on my mobile.

Anyway, I don't know why you're hating on Alexandrian primacy. These honorable Saints read in the Alexandrian manner:

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2015, 04:59:26 PM »
Between St. Jerome's work and the final Vulgate there is a gap of time and ideology.

There certainly is, especially in the Douay. That's why I own a critical edition that smooths the edges, helps if you're reading the Vulgate for proper understanding of the Scriptures.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2015, 05:00:20 PM »
But in both it and the LXX, Psalm 95 vs 5 reads "The gods of the Gentiles are demons" or words to that effect.  I use the integrity of that verse as a quick reference to make sure I'm not using the Masoretic.

I don't understand how this relates. St. Jerome was a strong and undoubtedly the earliest proponent of using Masoretic texts.

Origen's Hexapla doesn't count?
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2015, 05:16:45 PM »
I myself generally just read the Douay Rheims if I am rushed for time, as St. Jerome sought a balanced and accurate translation of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate generally aligns with the Septuagint, but has the added advantage of being translated by an Orthodox saint who labored for years in Judea and compared Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek sources to get it right.  And the Douay Rheims is elegant.  But not quite as elegant as the Authorized Text.  Most KJV editions alas do not include the "apocrypha" which limits their usefulness as much as, if not more than, the Masoretic Old Testament, which Eric Jobe is a huge fan of.

My favourite translation is the Murdock translation of the West Syriac Peshitto, but he only did the New Testament.  So one still has to go hunting for a reliable Old Testament in decent ecclesiastical English.  The Lamsa tragically is in modern English throughout and I know some who question its veracity, and the association between it and the Peshitta Primacy crowd doesn't help.  I do love the Peshitta though having read interlingual word by word translations of it; it is an extremely conservative snapshot of the Greek text which shows us how pious fourth century Christians read the Bible, and it also is rather a strong endorsement of the Byzantine text type over the so called Alexandrian, the "Minority text" on which the NIV is based.

I use the Douay from time to time, I have it on my mobile.

Anyway, I don't know why you're hating on Alexandrian primacy. These honorable Saints read in the Alexandrian manner:



You're blithely conflating the Alexandrian church and the so-called Alexandrian textype. The latter is a purely theoretical construct named by English scholars who were partisans of a particular two uncial manuscripts. No scholar would claim these manuscripts are synonymous to, say, the scriptural materials of the Coptic church.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2015, 05:18:20 PM »
But in both it and the LXX, Psalm 95 vs 5 reads "The gods of the Gentiles are demons" or words to that effect.  I use the integrity of that verse as a quick reference to make sure I'm not using the Masoretic.

I don't understand how this relates. St. Jerome was a strong and undoubtedly the earliest proponent of using Masoretic texts.

Origen's Hexapla doesn't count?

Are you assuming the Hexapla prefers one of its six or is this something Origen explicitly says there?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2015, 05:27:42 PM »
I myself generally just read the Douay Rheims if I am rushed for time, as St. Jerome sought a balanced and accurate translation of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate generally aligns with the Septuagint, but has the added advantage of being translated by an Orthodox saint who labored for years in Judea and compared Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek sources to get it right.  And the Douay Rheims is elegant.  But not quite as elegant as the Authorized Text.  Most KJV editions alas do not include the "apocrypha" which limits their usefulness as much as, if not more than, the Masoretic Old Testament, which Eric Jobe is a huge fan of.

My favourite translation is the Murdock translation of the West Syriac Peshitto, but he only did the New Testament.  So one still has to go hunting for a reliable Old Testament in decent ecclesiastical English.  The Lamsa tragically is in modern English throughout and I know some who question its veracity, and the association between it and the Peshitta Primacy crowd doesn't help.  I do love the Peshitta though having read interlingual word by word translations of it; it is an extremely conservative snapshot of the Greek text which shows us how pious fourth century Christians read the Bible, and it also is rather a strong endorsement of the Byzantine text type over the so called Alexandrian, the "Minority text" on which the NIV is based.

I use the Douay from time to time, I have it on my mobile.

Anyway, I don't know why you're hating on Alexandrian primacy. These honorable Saints read in the Alexandrian manner:



You're blithely conflating the Alexandrian church and the so-called Alexandrian textype. The latter is a purely theoretical construct named by English scholars who were partisans of a particular two uncial manuscripts. No scholar would claim these manuscripts are synonymous to, say, the scriptural materials of the Coptic church.

It's hardly theoretical. There are clearly distinct readings between Alexandrian and Byzantine text types. This is a consensus opinion that all of textual scholarship acknowledges, not just the personal opinion of a few Britons. A theoretical construct would be the so-called "Caesarean" text type. Nobody disputes that the Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western text types exist.

Furthermore, I am not conflating anything. The Codex Sinaiticus the primary witness to the Alexandrian text type was "discovered" and preserved in the Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine. There is no conspiracy here. Furthermore, all the Coptic translations, more likely than not in usage liturgically by the Coptic Church today, as well as Ss. Cyril, Athanasius and Clement are witnesses to this tradition.

There is no material way possible that the Coptic Church would be using Byzantine manuscripts. They were cut off from the Byzantine Empire after the rise of Islam.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 05:40:56 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2015, 05:43:34 PM »
But in both it and the LXX, Psalm 95 vs 5 reads "The gods of the Gentiles are demons" or words to that effect.  I use the integrity of that verse as a quick reference to make sure I'm not using the Masoretic.

I don't understand how this relates. St. Jerome was a strong and undoubtedly the earliest proponent of using Masoretic texts.

The Masoretic text did not exist when St. Jerome compiled the vulgate.  The Masoretes were Jewish scribes, who may have been Karaites, who sought to create the most reliable edition of the Hebrew Bible.  The name comes from the Masorah, or marginal notes.  Now Eric Jobe believes they succeeded, but to me, the discrepancy between the Vulgate and the Masoretic Text indicates that there existed a diversity of Hebrew readings many of which were more favorable to the LXX and the Church.  The Masoretic Text introduces one possible Christological reference but suppresses several others.  The Masoretes were scrupulous, so I don't think this was intentional on their part, but the vulgate represents a translation from Hebrew sources that is well aligned with the Septuagint and like the Septuagint, has been continuously used by Christians, which you can't say about the Masoretic Text (which was unused by Christians until Martin Luther).
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2015, 05:46:33 PM »
I don't understand the emotion in your post. Use of the word "theoretical" does not dismiss scholarly work or label it conspiracy. Yes, the textypes are all constructs for scholarly purposes -- all fields of scientific study make use of theoretical constructs, and the strength of such theories are upheld or not upheld as they are used. And, no, "Alexandrian textype" just because it contains "Alexandrian" is not a term of the study of the Coptic traditions or the Fathers -- you may have reasons to find the subjects closely related, but you did not explain this thinking in your conflationary post. Meanwhile, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are, yes, strangely unique, and this is not unkown, nor is there is reason I can think of to upbraid a commenter who prefers to approach them with caution.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2015, 05:51:02 PM »
The Masoretic text did not exist when St. Jerome compiled the vulgate.

I think "Masoretic text' is often used to denote the Hebrew textual tradition authoritative among the Jews. However, you're right and I take your point.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 05:51:13 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2015, 05:52:45 PM »
I don't understand the emotion in your post. Use of the word "theoretical" does not dismiss scholarly work or label it conspiracy. Yes, the textypes are all constructs for scholarly purposes -- all fields of scientific study make use of theoretical constructs, and the strength of such theories are upheld or not upheld as they are used. And, no, "Alexandrian textype" just because it contains "Alexandrian" is not a term of the study of the Coptic traditions or the Fathers -- you may have reasons to find the subjects closely related, but you did not explain this thinking in your conflationary post. Meanwhile, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are, yes, strangely unique, and this is not unkown, nor is there is reason I can think of to upbraid a commenter who prefers to approach them with caution.

You have no idea about textual criticism at all and you're trying to debate about this stuff? Stick to the liturgy. It's completely fine to support Byzantine primacy. It's not okay to claim all of scholarship is "a construct" or "contrived" there are almost 6000 New Testament manuscripts in Greek, and many more in other translations all of which are documented, footnoted, studied and collated. The Alexandrian Fathers, as is recorded, used a text-type that was Alexandrian. As well, all of the early Coptic translations use an Alexandrian textual tradition. That is a fact, you may not like that fact, but fact, it is.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not the only witnesses to the Alexandrian text type, they just happen to be the most well-known and complete. The Alexandrian Father and Coptic translations are also witnesses to it. Also, every early Gospel fragment we discover has Alexandrian readings.

I don't have a preference either way toward Byzantine or Alexandrian primacy, all of them (all of the manuscripts in question,) were produced by the Orthodox Church anyhow.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 05:59:51 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2015, 06:05:42 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2015, 06:13:40 PM »
The Masoretic text did not exist when St. Jerome compiled the vulgate.

I think "Masoretic text' is often used to denote the Hebrew textual tradition authoritative among the Jews. However, you're right and I take your point.

I appreciate that.  Eric Jobe, who I like, does confusingly like to refer to the pre-Masoretic text as Masoretic and to deny there's a real difference, but I think he's letting his deep and not unjustified love for the Masoretic get to him, because we apparently have examples in the Dead Sea Scrolls that read like the LXX.  And we see the Apostles apparently quoting from both in the New Testament; in places what they say aligns with the MT, where in other places it aligns with the LXX.

Regarding the Alexandrian text type I do believe it has some value, but to my knowledge we have no proof that the Codex Sinaiticua or Vaticanus are specimens from the batch of 50 Bibles the Roman Patriarch asked Pope St. Athanasius to provide. They might be, but based on some omissions, they might be intentionally altered Arian editions.

The Byzantine text type is IMO preferrable simply because it better aligns with the Orthodox dogma that St. Athanasius helped promote, and with the Peshitta, which I believe to be one of the most piously faithful translations based on how it renders, for example, the pericope in Matthew where Jesus heals the servant/child/son of a centurion.  It says son, whereas in a similiar pericope in Luke, it says servant, which suggests the pious practice common among literalists, who were predominant in the Antiochene school which presumably influenced the Peshitta, that slightly different pericopes refer to distinct events, e.g. The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are not the same occurrence.  Now I do not rigidly hold to this view, but this shows a piety on the part of translators which was in no respects dishonest; multiple renderings were available and they chose the ones that seemed to build up the Faith.

In like manner, the Byzantine text type seems favorable because it is richer and more supportive of dogma than the Alexandrian.

After all, we're not Sola Scriptura Protestants.  Holy Tradition is infallible; yes, the Bible lies near the beating heart of this tradition, but we should select and use text types which serve Tradition rather than the other way around, which is perverse.  After all, the oral traditions about Jesus predate the New Testament, and these traditions are woven into the liturgical life of the Church.  This is doubtless why the Orthodox Church relies on the Byzantine text, which later formed the basis of the Textus Receptus used by the translators of the KJV.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2015, 06:16:17 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're the only person who's made inaccuracies here. You've claimed falsely that Westcott-Hort, two Brits, were the only ones responsible for the current virtual consensus toward Alexandrian primacy. They lived in 1881. We have uncovered numerous manuscripts since then and that consensus has not changed. The idea that the current consensus is based on the work of British men who lived in 1881 and that there have no developments in the field since then is what is disingenuous, exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're claiming I have made an inaccuracy and you haven't presented any evidence at all to that claim. Let's see some.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 06:16:54 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2015, 06:19:52 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.

Agreed.  I think we should, on the basis of what they omit, regard those codices with great suspicion.  We have no idea who wrote them or what their purpose was.  If they had the imprimatur of St. Athanasius with his episcopal signet imprinted on them, and we could verify this wasn't a fraud (which to my knowledge we can't, since we have no idea what his insignia looked like, correct me if I'm wrong), then it might be possible to accept them as part of the order of Bibles requested by Rome from Alexandria.  But the mere fact they were recovered in good Traditon rather than used to death as it were in the dark ages and then piously burned suggests they may have been reject copies or Arian editions.

We can only trust the Textus Receptus of the Orthodox churches; the Septuagint and Byzantine New Testament, the Western Peshitto, and perhaps,the,early editions of the Vulgate, and their translations into other languages.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2015, 06:23:37 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.

Agreed.  I think we should, on the basis of what they omit, regard those codices with great suspicion.  We have no idea who wrote them or what their purpose was.  If they had the imprimatur of St. Athanasius with his episcopal signet imprinted on them, and we could verify this wasn't a fraud (which to my knowledge we can't, since we have no idea what his insignia looked like, correct me if I'm wrong), then it might be possible to accept them as part of the order of Bibles requested by Rome from Alexandria.  But the mere fact they were recovered in good Traditon rather than used to death as it were in the dark ages and then piously burned suggests they may have been reject copies or Arian editions.

We can only trust the Textus Receptus of the Orthodox churches; the Septuagint and Byzantine New Testament, the Western Peshitto, and perhaps,the,early editions of the Vulgate, and their translations into other languages.

Nobody is saying that Athansius created the Sinaiticus et al. manuscripts or that he endorsed them. Anyway, what I am seeing from both of you is an astounding ignorance of the subject of textual criticism. St. Athanasius in his Patristic writings is known to have used Alexandrian readings, that was the point. In other words, when St. Athanasius quoted the New Testament, he did so from a Bible which was Alexandrian. The Alexandrian tradition constitutes thousands of manuscripts, it isn't just two or three. Arians couldn't corrupt hundreds of manuscripts over a large geographical area and over a couple centuries. This sounds like an argument a Muslim would use in trying to claim corruption of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church never used the Textus Receptus. The TR is an Erasmian text which is an extremely poor and corrupt example of the Byzantine tradition, with a bit of Romanism added in. Also, it's ironic that you refer to the Septuagint, because our earliest witnesses of the Septuagint also are our earliest witnesses to the Alexandrian textual tradition.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 06:28:30 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2015, 06:36:36 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're the only person who's made inaccuracies here. You've claimed falsely that Westcott-Hort, two Brits, were the only ones responsible for the current virtual consensus toward Alexandrian primacy. They lived in 1881. We have uncovered numerous manuscripts since then and that consensus has not changed. The idea that the current consensus is based on the work of British men who lived in 1881 and that there have no developments in the field since then is what is disingenuous, exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're claiming I have made an inaccuracy and you haven't presented any evidence at all to that claim. Let's see some.

There may be a consensus among textual critics but there is no consensus in the Orthodox Church.  We have both Eric Jobe and Fr. John Whiteford, who represent the left and right wing of the church respectively, recommending the use of the KJV, based as it is on the Byzantine text type, over newer editions based on the Minority Text.  This is frankly not a question of scholarship but of ecclesiastical authority; I use what the Church tells me to use.  In many cases the scholars of whom you speak are outspoken opponents of the Orthodox Church and all she stands for.

For my part I do have some knowledge of textual criticism. Not enough to claim to be an expert, but enough to know that most textual critics are enemies of Orthodoxy who like to draw unfounded conclusions.  The entire textual critical community and the entire community of higher criticism have done nothing but harm the integrity of the Church and her dogmatic traditions, from the start.  Now there are good and trustworthy textual critics, but they appear to be a Minority.  And in the Orthodox Church they have no authority other than what is given them by the bishops, which fortunately, thus far, has been very little.  I believe of the Orthodox seminaries in the US only St. Vladimir's puts much emphasis on textual or higher criticism, and they have come under fire for the practice.

Consider also that St. Athanasius may well have been reading from a manuscript that agrees with the Alexandrian text in some respects and the Byzantine text in others.  We have no idea what he was using, since verses in isolation are like tiles of a mosaic, as St. Irenaeus demonstrated.  I find myself scandalized by the idea that Athanasius the Great would in some manner object to the Byzantine text given the Trinitarian thrology he fought so hard to defend from Arius and his supporters is so much more strongly articulated in the Byzantine text type.

so to conclude, the entire field of textual criticism is IMO of very limited value, because it doesn't matter what version of the New Testament is the ost "accurate" but rather which one is most closely aligned with Holy Tradition and the liturgical rites of the Church.  The Orthodox Church wrote the New Testament and has the exclusive right to alter it if needed to better convey the Gospel.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2015, 06:52:31 PM »
What you're presenting is inaccurate. There may be a recent thrust in the scholarship to connect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to tradition, and perhaps this is your area (you wouldn't grant us a peek at your credentials, would you?), but the overall picture you are persisting in is tendentious or exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're the only person who's made inaccuracies here. You've claimed falsely that Westcott-Hort, two Brits, were the only ones responsible for the current virtual consensus toward Alexandrian primacy. They lived in 1881. We have uncovered numerous manuscripts since then and that consensus has not changed. The idea that the current consensus is based on the work of British men who lived in 1881 and that there have no developments in the field since then is what is disingenuous, exaggerated and inaccurate.

You're claiming I have made an inaccuracy and you haven't presented any evidence at all to that claim. Let's see some.

There may be a consensus among textual critics but there is no consensus in the Orthodox Church.  We have both Eric Jobe and Fr. John Whiteford, who represent the left and right wing of the church respectively, recommending the use of the KJV, based as it is on the Byzantine text type, over newer editions based on the Minority Text.  This is frankly not a question of scholarship but of ecclesiastical authority; I use what the Church tells me to use.  In many cases the scholars of whom you speak are outspoken opponents of the Orthodox Church and all she stands for.

Of course, which is why I say that it's entirely fine to support Byzantine primacy. The Orthodox Church has, since the 4th century, utilized the Byzantine tradition. I can understand why it supports the Byzantine tradition on that basis, and I have no problem with people who use it on that basis.

Quote
Consider also that St. Athanasius may well have been reading from a manuscript that agrees with the Alexandrian text in some respects and the Byzantine text in others.  We have no idea what he was using, since verses in isolation are like tiles of a mosaic, as St. Irenaeus demonstrated.  I find myself scandalized by the idea that Athanasius the Great would in some manner object to the Byzantine text given the Trinitarian thrology he fought so hard to defend from Arius and his supporters is so much more strongly articulated in the Byzantine text type.

The Byzantine text type originated, as is clear from the name, with the Byzantines. Notably, St. John Chrysostom was the first witness among the Fathers to the tradition. Athanasius wouldn't have had access, or had even known about the Byzantine tradition. No Christian prior to the period of the Cappadocians did. St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius wouldn't have known about it either.

Athanasius didn't know about the Byzantine text type. It did not exist in Egypt. The Alexandrian text form did. The Alexandrian text type was the only text type (in Greek) until the Byzantines (Anatolia & Greece) diverged from it in the 4th century.

I also don't understand how you can claim that something is "stronger" or "more attested" in the Byzantine text form than in the Alexandrian at all. The reading that "Jesus" not "the Lord" rescued the Israelites out of Egypt found in Jude 5 is an Alexandrian reading. HARDLY a low Christology is being demonstrated there. Or in John, where it says Monogenis o Theos, the Only-begotten God! I really don't understand that argument.

It would frankly make more sense to allege MONOPHYSITE tendencies in Alexandrian manuscripts than Arian, since they are so high Christology oriented.

Quote
so to conclude, the entire field of textual criticism is IMO of very limited value, because it doesn't matter what version of the New Testament is the ost "accurate" but rather which one is most closely aligned with Holy Tradition and the liturgical rites of the Church.  The Orthodox Church wrote the New Testament and has the exclusive right to alter it if needed to better convey the Gospel.

Which is my opinion, which is why I don't care which one aligns with. I can see why pious Orthodox would like to use the Byzantine tradition, which is attested to for over 1500 years over the Alexandrian tradition. I can also see the reason why one would use the Alexandrian tradition for the sake of scholarship and accuracy.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 06:55:27 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2015, 10:10:22 PM »
There are probably five or six of these attempts to copy edit the KJV to modern standards. ( 1 ) They aren't other versions, merely KJV with some spelling and grammar changes; ( 2 ) they are invariably awful, sometimes to the point of being littered with typos, but always with eccentric and inconsistent changes, because the people producing them ( a ) lack the professional credentials and ( b ) are usually motivated by petty ideology.

My brother and I are working on a similar project, but it's long work and of doubtful value compared to the value a good new translation would hold.

Oh really.

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline frjohnwhiteford

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Wherein we expose our knowledges about Bible stuff
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2015, 07:05:13 AM »
Someone mentioned that Codex Sinaiticus was preserved at St. Catherine's monastery, but what they did not mention is that the reason it had survived all those centuries is that it was not being used... except to light their ovens,according to Tischendorf.

The Alexandrian text type originated in Alexandria, but it is not the text type the Church of Alexandria actually preserved and used. It is a text type based on manuscripts like Sinaiticus that had been collecting dust in various libraries, or found in rubbish heaps in Egypt.

For more on that, see: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/

The connection between the KJV and NKJV is that they are both based on the same texts -- the Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. The NKJV also attempted to maintain as much of the language and rhythm of the KJV, while still putting it into contemporary English.

Someone else said that the KJV was far inferior to other translations. In terms of its English, it is far superior to other translations, and it is generally a very good translation of the original text it was based on, though there are some occasional mistakes.

See: http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm