Preferred Bible translation

[Alive]

Pretty sure, I have responded, but Jade’s input brought something to mind. My paper bible for yewrs has been the NASB..it is my favorite. When in study, I use near everything including original texts.

Regarding the ESV…each Sunday morning early over coffee before breakfast, my wife and I listen to scripture…the ESV. Its very good listening, but beyond that, listening to scripture as a narrative story told, is a wonderful practice. I suggest that doing so is…illuminating.

:-)

[NConly]

4 hours ago, JimmyB said:

If you have decided that your preferred translation is the KJV, fine, that is your decision.  I prefer both the NRSVue and the NIV, but I also use others.  There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation.  They each have their merits.

My main objection is those who insist that the King James translation is the word of God.  Again, if the KJV is your preference, fine with me.

Finally, what was the main factor (or factors) in your decision?

In order for me to list deciding factors I would have to list specifics I do not like in other bibles. Then comes the rebuttal of my post. Ill past on that.

[phreSXicthaxlor]

.

many Christians spend many years wondering and searching for truth about the  authenticity of  The Greek  Septuagint  and its reliability   - their question is asked      “  is this codex of scripture truly an original text that was created before Jesus was born  ?

from the very first  Genesis  book of the Bible in The Greek  Septuagint

we see  Enoch at 165 years of age had his son  Methuselah. 
=       this was 1,287 years after creation,  and Mathusala at 167 years of age had Lamech. = this was 1,454 years after creation and Lamech at 88 years of age had Noah = this was 1,642 years after creation. in The Greek Septuagint - all of these numbers of this genealogy are totally different and contradicting the genealogy in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah,
although - the flood in The Septuagint the flood does began 600 years after Noah was born = “  2,242 “  years after creation –  
and in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah the flood begins at “  1,656 “  years after creation - because the timeline or generations are totally different.

But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “  1,287 “  when Methuselah was born from the year “  2,242 = when the flood came.
2,242
1,287-
- - - - - = - 955 -     the math is completely off by 14 years. The Greek Septuagint says – Gen 5:26-27 - Mathusala died at 969 years - - - this is “  14 “ years of difference.    A total contradiction.__

In The Greek Septuagint -    not only does the math not add up - but The Septuagint shows that - Mathusala literally  lived 14 years  after / longer – from when the flood had  come ....

According to the math of The Septuagint - Mathusala lived  14  years  longer after the flood occurred and  then he died 14  years after the flood.       The Septuagint genealogy timeline   /   computation says that  he survived through the flood   -
 but Mathusala was never on the ark.

This also means that the entire   “  post -  flood  “    timeline of genealogies and  chronological events remaining through the entire Greek Septuagint   after the flood   are all based based upon this Genesis error, 

  in The Masoretic Hebrew Text, the flood begins at               “  1,656 “  years after creation -   But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “  1,287 “  when this occured from the year  -  2,242     -   this  sets  everyone who is born after the flood 586 years into the future based on this. 

But this is not the reason that honest Christians should reject and realize that  The Greek Septuagint is a fake and fraudulent hoax,  nor  just the mere  fact  that the entire timeline  and  genealogy and  chronological  events  and  births  through the entire Greek Septuagint are based upon the Genesis error …

   and even the fact that,  according to the math of The Septuagint    -------    Jesus Christ was crucified 586 years after  Rome  conquered Jerusalem .

I simply ask, do Christians know the very simple and factual and real reason that the Greek Septuagint can easily be proven to be a complete hoax ?

Edited June 6, 2023 by phreSXicthaxlor

[JimmyB]

On 6/5/2023 at 3:08 PM, farouk said:

@NConly I think there are strong reasons for the King James; and if some others don't appreciate them then ppl will likely be talking at cross-purposes to some extent....

Can you be more specific?  What are those strong reasons?

[phreSXicthaxlor]

Yes,   THIS IS THE FACTS -  

this is the evidence for a Greek Old Testament B.C. Septuagint

Click here    -     http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/earlylxx/earlypaplist.html#chronol

this is the only physical evidence existing for a Greek Old Testament B.C. Septuagint,  of  that which is pretended to be the Greek Septuagint.

These -  fragments make up less than   1%   of the Old Testament, tiny tiny little shards and pieces of fragments ranging from a human thumbnail to the size of a playing card.

The B.C. Septuagint can not be shown to have existed as a completed OT Greek Translation that was duplicated and copied and widely spread and transmitted, distributed to the major cities and churches throughout Egypt and nearby areas.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts - only tiny, teeny shards and shreds of crumbled rotten and flakes of abandoned, lost and thrown away fragments that no one wanted or cared about,  to even preserve a single page of the Bible -

 not even a single page was preserved -   no evidence shows that a Greek Septuagint existed  before  Jesus.

The Septuagint however - is built upon a flake fantasy consisting of several Vatican and Egyptian - produced rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and are being  WORKED  UPON  and  BUILT  and re - edited   -   that were not even completed until   500 - 1200   years years after Yahashua.

 
There is absolutely no physical proof of a Pre-Christian Septuagint.

What is referred to as the Septuagint today is nothing more than compilations of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and these manuscript versions do not even agree with each other and were never completed within the A. D era   -  the Septuagint had to be reconstructed    -  what does this mean  ?

 these fragments are not even enough to reconstruct even a single complete verse of the Old Testament, this is not even enough to reconstruct even a verse, and they are telling you that they have reconstructed The Greek completed Septuagint.

it was not until the  12th  to  16th century  - that we begin to finally see the SEPTUAGINT Chapters and partial books - suddenly appearing in completed books for sale.

The SEPTUAGINT is  fake  because the only  B.C.  evidence  for  its  existance are fragments, peices of Itty, bitty bits, tiny little shards and pieces of fragments that do not even make up  1%  of the Old Testament,  not even a single page can be reconstructed using these  B.C.  fragments.

Furthermore, even if there was a  B.C.  Greek  Old  Testament  produced   there is no evidence or proof  as  to  which  of  these  B.C.  fragments  are  pertaining to the  The GREEK SEPTUAGINT.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, phreSXicthaxlor said:

Yes,   THIS IS THE FACTS -  

this is the evidence for a Greek Old Testament B.C. Septuagint

Click here    -     http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/earlylxx/earlypaplist.html#chronol

this is the only physical evidence existing for a Greek Old Testament B.C. Septuagint,  of  that which is pretended to be the Greek Septuagint.

These -  fragments make up less than   1%   of the Old Testament, tiny tiny little shards and pieces of fragments ranging from a human thumbnail to the size of a playing card.

The B.C. Septuagint can not be shown to have existed as a completed OT Greek Translation that was duplicated and copied and widely spread and transmitted, distributed to the major cities and churches throughout Egypt and nearby areas.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts - only tiny, teeny shards and shreds of crumbled rotten and flakes of abandoned, lost and thrown away fragments that no one wanted or cared about,  to even preserve a single page of the Bible -

 not even a single page was preserved -   no evidence shows that a Greek Septuagint existed  before  Jesus.

The Septuagint however - is built upon a flake fantasy consisting of several Vatican and Egyptian - produced rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and are being  WORKED  UPON  and  BUILT  and re - edited   -   that were not even completed until   500 - 1200   years years after Yahashua.

 
There is absolutely no physical proof of a Pre-Christian Septuagint.

What is referred to as the Septuagint today is nothing more than compilations of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and these manuscript versions do not even agree with each other and were never completed within the A. D era   -  the Septuagint had to be reconstructed    -  what does this mean  ?

 these fragments are not even enough to reconstruct even a single complete verse of the Old Testament, this is not even enough to reconstruct even a verse, and they are telling you that they have reconstructed The Greek completed Septuagint.

it was not until the  12th  to  16th century  - that we begin to finally see the SEPTUAGINT Chapters and partial books - suddenly appearing in completed books for sale.

The SEPTUAGINT is  fake  because the only  B.C.  evidence  for  its  existance are fragments, peices of Itty, bitty bits, tiny little shards and pieces of fragments that do not even make up  1%  of the Old Testament,  not even a single page can be reconstructed using these  B.C.  fragments.

Furthermore, even if there was a  B.C.  Greek  Old  Testament  produced   there is no evidence or proof  as  to  which  of  these  B.C.  fragments  are  pertaining to the  The GREEK SEPTUAGINT.

The link seems to have quite a bit still around. Its a wonder that any made it.

There was a few groups that tryed to wipe the bible out.

In the 3rd A.D., the Roman emperor Diocletian commanded that all Bibles be destroyed, any home with a Bible in it was taken and burned.

He even built a monument over what he thought was the last surviving Bible, though wasn't successful.

The ottomans destroyed thousands in their quest to take land.

In 100 B.C., Antiochus IV King of the Seleucid Empire brutally persecuted the Jews. He burned all the scriptures he could find and killed anyone having one, but scriptures survived. 

It certainly wasn't what some people wanted.

They all have been reconstructed at some point or another.

Edited June 7, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

On 6/5/2023 at 7:57 PM, phreSXicthaxlor said:

.

many Christians spend many years wondering and searching for truth about the  authenticity of  The Greek  Septuagint  and its reliability   - their question is asked      “  is this codex of scripture truly an original text that was created before Jesus was born  ?

from the very first  Genesis  book of the Bible in The Greek  Septuagint

we see  Enoch at 165 years of age had his son  Methuselah. 
=       this was 1,287 years after creation,  and Mathusala at 167 years of age had Lamech. = this was 1,454 years after creation and Lamech at 88 years of age had Noah = this was 1,642 years after creation. in The Greek Septuagint - all of these numbers of this genealogy are totally different and contradicting the genealogy in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah,
although - the flood in The Septuagint the flood does began 600 years after Noah was born = “  2,242 “  years after creation –  
and in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah the flood begins at “  1,656 “  years after creation - because the timeline or generations are totally different.

But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “  1,287 “  when Methuselah was born from the year “  2,242 = when the flood came.
2,242
1,287-
- - - - - = - 955 -     the math is completely off by 14 years. The Greek Septuagint says – Gen 5:26-27 - Mathusala died at 969 years - - - this is “  14 “ years of difference.    A total contradiction.__

In The Greek Septuagint -    not only does the math not add up - but The Septuagint shows that - Mathusala literally  lived 14 years  after / longer – from when the flood had  come ....

According to the math of The Septuagint - Mathusala lived  14  years  longer after the flood occurred and  then he died 14  years after the flood.       The Septuagint genealogy timeline   /   computation says that  he survived through the flood   -
 but Mathusala was never on the ark.

This also means that the entire   “  post -  flood  “    timeline of genealogies and  chronological events remaining through the entire Greek Septuagint   after the flood   are all based based upon this Genesis error, 

  in The Masoretic Hebrew Text, the flood begins at               “  1,656 “  years after creation -   But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “  1,287 “  when this occured from the year  -  2,242     -   this  sets  everyone who is born after the flood 586 years into the future based on this. 

But this is not the reason that honest Christians should reject and realize that  The Greek Septuagint is a fake and fraudulent hoax,  nor  just the mere  fact  that the entire timeline  and  genealogy and  chronological  events  and  births  through the entire Greek Septuagint are based upon the Genesis error …

   and even the fact that,  according to the math of The Septuagint    -------    Jesus Christ was crucified 586 years after  Rome  conquered Jerusalem .

I simply ask, do Christians know the very simple and factual and real reason that the Greek Septuagint can easily be proven to be a complete hoax ?

So an error equals a hoax?

The first edition of the KJV was nicknamed the "she" bible because of an error. I wouldn't consider it a hoax.

Got any examples of the math errors. Verses etc.

The Greek Septuagint was ordered to be made by an Egyptian Pharoah around the 3rd B.C., he wanted to add the Hebrew scriptures to his library.

The original book was called

"The Translation of the Seventy" yet there was 72 translators, 6 from each tribe.

Edited June 7, 2023 by BeyondET

[phreSXicthaxlor]

.

a very small minority of Christians have horribly suffered, many sacrificed their lives attempting to translate from the Greek,  Hebrew  and  Latin.

the majority of so - called Christians around them  simply  would  not accept these attempts nor allow even a complete book to remain undestroyed and circulated.

this went on for nearly  2000  years,

The meaning of the Latin word   "  Septuaginta  "  literally means the word          "   Seventy  "  in  Latin.    yes, there is a letter inspiring the claim for evidence for the Septuagint  -  Egyptian leaders are described requesting this translation.

A  government  letter and  bits  of  fragments and shreds and pieces of  BC  greek  fragments of the Old Testament.    not even enough to reconstruct even a single page of the Old Testament.    

The     Septuaginta  "   had to be reconstructed and re - assembled after that Jesus had left the earth using  Egyptian and Roman Catholic greek projects of producing a greek old testament.      Septuagint is nothing but simply evidence that Rome and Egypt were working to translate the O.T   -  not even as much as a complete page was shown to have existed for a Septuagint  translation.

These Rome and Egypt  AD  projects are  construction and   assembly of what was being translated hundreds of years after the New Testament was authored and claimed as Septuagint.

[farouk]

On 6/5/2023 at 5:28 PM, NConly said:

In order for me to list deciding factors I would have to list specifics I do not like in other bibles. Then comes the rebuttal of my post. Ill past on that.

@NConly I do think that many Bible versions have their pros and cons. To me, the King James stands in a special category for its many strengths.

[JimmyB]

The Septuagint is the Old Testament that was written in Greek and in use at the time of Christ throughout the Mediterranean region.  It is the one often quoted in the New Testament.  It is a collection of Old Testament writings, not a complete, unified Bible.  And it is a translation.  

----------------------------------------------------------------

The King James translation was the Bible for centuries, so it is hard for people to accept the fact that it is simply a translation, not the word of God. 

Olde Englyshe sound pious and holy to modern ears, but it was the normal language of the early 17th Century.  Never forget that Jesus (Yeshua) was a rural carpenter who spoke Aramaic.  He spoketh not in a tongue that was "lofty" and sounded odd to the people of His time.  So, in that sense, a translation should convey the words and meaning to our modern minds as clearly as possible.  The 412-year-old translation clearly fails to do that.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard pastors, preachers, lay people, retranslate the KJV Englyshe "on the fly", saying "now what this means...".

There are very, very good reasons to use modern translations!

a) They are written in a language that is meant to be clearly understood.  You and I and everyone else speaks/reads/writes in modern English, so why shouldn't the Bible be translated into our normal, modern language?

b) There are many more source documents now than there were in the early 17th Century.  The KJV is based on a) a limited set of late medieval texts, b) the Latin Vulgate, and c) a few early English translations.  By comparison, modern translations are based on a much greater (and earlier) collection of sources,  Additionally, there are many ancient non-Biblical documents that clarify the meaning of the languages.

c) The art/science of textual criticism is far more advanced than it was in the early 1600s.

d) Unlike the committee that was beholden to one secular ruler to produce a translation that established his personal doctrine as the truth (clearly ignoring the politics of a secular king's quest for legitimacy), modern translation committees are composed of people from different denominations to insure that there is no secular bias.  That alone should be reason enough to use a modern translation!  

e) Every good translation should convey the words and meaning of the early writings as clearly and as accurately as possible.  One should not have to re-translate 17th Century Englyshe to understand what God wants us to understand.  You and I and everyone else on this forum uses conventional English in our communications.  Why? Because we want to be clearly understood.  It is the same with God: He wants us to clearly understand His words.

That is the primary reason that everyone should use a Bible that is translated into our language, as clearly and accurately as possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. The Puritans fled James' rule, with their Geneva Bibles (including the footnotes!) under their arms to escape persecution.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by JimmyB