"Have you looked into different translations fren?"
Oh yea, I've been doing this for over 40 years.
" The dead sea scrolls (either the oldest, or nearly the oldest document) confirm the best translations."
Qumran scrolls are about the same age as the Septuagint (285 BC) and date from 300 BC to 100 AD. What's interesting is that the Qumran scrolls agree with the accuracy of the Septuagint more so than the Masoretic Texts.
"These denominations are not picked at random, they are ones that hold firmly to the conception that the word of God is holy and perfect, that man inspired by God wrote what he desired."
The inspiration that God provides is observable throughout Nature. It is foremost in daily life. The Bible is only witness to this. Yet, it is all too commonly ignored. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that Scripture is completely without error. This has has become a central belief of evangelicalism. Let's get this straight. The Bible is not the Son of God. It is a human book. As a human book, it is vulnerable to the errors of human and historical limitations. I could provide ample evidence of this, but these detailed examples are for another time. In addition, the many books of the Bible and not included in the Bible is a testament of human short comings and historical limitations. The Bible is not a divine oracle sent down from heaven either. It does however bears witness to the Word of God, and it is therefore an indirect form of the Word by the Holy Spirit [emphasis added]. In other words, the Bible points beyond itself to the Word of God; it does not contain within itself the Word. The Word of God is not bound to a book, nor should it be, yet this human book becomes God’s Word in its witness [emphasis added]. We depend on the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, not on the “perfection” of a book. The key word here is 'Holy Spirit' or from the Greek 'pneuma', who's Divine Order is observable throughout Nature and it's Laws.
"The Geneva Bible is a fine Bible, I have no known issues with it."
I have this 1599 version. Generally speaking protestant bibles are based on the corrupted Masoretic Texts.
"If you think that people 500 years ago were un-corruptable, but we are ultra-corruptable, then I believe you've dug yourself in too deep mentally into realities that don't exist."
You stated this, I didn't. I did say protestant Bibles are based on the Masoretic Texts and should be cross referenced with other Bibles including a good English-Greek Lexicon. I even check the Latin, as well.
" When it comes to translations, you have to look at those who translated it, what were their intentions in the translation, and how does it pan out? What effective changes did they make?"
I agree. You are making my point.
"Reading the NIV, which is a phrase for phrase translation, compared to the ESV, which is more word for word, you notice the phrasing is different between the two. When you look at the effectual change, there really isn't any."
True, but there's more. And you stated it yourself -- ..."because English, as a language, blows chunks." This is why a good English-Greek Lexicon adds additional light on word definitions. Again, I could provide examples that would take up pages.
"To say that all protestant bibles etc. Do you realize how many people are under the umbrella of Protestant. Any non-Catholic Christian is considered a protestant, whether they claim the title or not."
This does not eliminate the very Bible's categorized under these main branches of Christianity. Normally, the Pope isn't reading from the KJV. Or is a Baptist minister reading from the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. Nor is the Greek or Russian Orthodox reading anything other than the LXX.
"...many things in the catholic church is derived from the Vatican II flavor of Bible, which is now considered one of the worst translations..."
You stated this. I didn't. I spoke of the Catholic pre-1964 Jerusalem bible. This is Vatican I era. Again, there are important insights the Old Jerusalem Bible can provide. For example in the old Jerusalem bible, Isaiah 34:14 mentions "....there too will Lilith take cover seeking rest." The NKJV states -- "Also the night creature shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. The KJV states -- " the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." And the HCSB says the following -- "Indeed, the night birds will stay there and will find a resting place.
If anyone knows who 'Lilith' is and the widespread belief of the deity during Isaiah's time, they would certainly have a much better understanding of this verse than the English translation of "night birds". One has to question why the name of Lilith was taken out. The question is did the translators not want the people to know? In the Jewish Kabbalah a part of the Pharisaic Talmud, Lilith is the first wife of Adam, and was banished from Eden. She became a demon and her special delight was to murder young children. The Canaanites use to sacrifice their first born and bury it in the wall of their home to pay homage to Lilith.
Oh yea, I've been doing this for over 40 years.
Qumran scrolls are about the same age as the Septuagint (285 BC) and date from 300 BC to 100 AD. What's interesting is that the Qumran scrolls agree with the accuracy of the Septuagint more so than the Masoretic Texts.
The inspiration that God provides is observable throughout Nature. It is foremost in daily life. The Bible is only witness to this. Yet, it is all too commonly ignored. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that Scripture is completely without error. This has has become a central belief of evangelicalism. Let's get this straight. The Bible is not the Son of God. It is a human book. As a human book, it is vulnerable to the errors of human and historical limitations. I could provide ample evidence of this, but these detailed examples are for another time. In addition, the many books of the Bible and not included in the Bible is a testament of human short comings and historical limitations. The Bible is not a divine oracle sent down from heaven either. It does however bears witness to the Word of God, and it is therefore an indirect form of the Word by the Holy Spirit [emphasis added]. In other words, the Bible points beyond itself to the Word of God; it does not contain within itself the Word. The Word of God is not bound to a book, nor should it be, yet this human book becomes God’s Word in its witness [emphasis added]. We depend on the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, not on the “perfection” of a book. The key word here is 'Holy Spirit' or from the Greek 'pneuma', who's Divine Order is observable throughout Nature and it's Laws.
I have this 1599 version. Generally speaking protestant bibles are based on the corrupted Masoretic Texts.
You stated this, I didn't. I did say protestant Bibles are based on the Masoretic Texts and should be cross referenced with other Bibles including a good English-Greek Lexicon. I even check the Latin, as well.
I agree. You are making my point.
True, but there's more. And you stated it yourself -- ..."because English, as a language, blows chunks." This is why a good English-Greek Lexicon adds additional light on word definitions. Again, I could provide examples that would take up pages.
This does not eliminate the very Bible's categorized under these main branches of Christianity. Normally, the Pope isn't reading from the KJV. Or is a Baptist minister reading from the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. Nor is the Greek or Russian Orthodox reading anything other than the LXX.
You stated this. I didn't. I spoke of the Catholic pre-1964 Jerusalem bible. This is Vatican I era. Again, there are important insights the Old Jerusalem Bible can provide. For example in the old Jerusalem bible, Isaiah 34:14 mentions "....there too will Lilith take cover seeking rest." The NKJV states -- "Also the night creature shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. The KJV states -- " the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." And the HCSB says the following -- "Indeed, the night birds will stay there and will find a resting place.
If anyone knows who 'Lilith' is and the widespread belief of the deity during Isaiah's time, they would certainly have a much better understanding of this verse than the English translation of "night birds". One has to question why the name of Lilith was taken out. The question is did the translators not want the people to know? In the Jewish Kabbalah a part of the Pharisaic Talmud, Lilith is the first wife of Adam, and was banished from Eden. She became a demon and her special delight was to murder young children. The Canaanites use to sacrifice their first born and bury it in the wall of their home to pay homage to Lilith.