Canon Of The Bible

[Chemnitz]

For whatever the reason, a group of Eastern Orthodox scholars are currrently translating the Old Testament from the Septuagint.

According to a friend of mine who is a EO priest they are doing the translation from the LXX because in the EO the Greek Language is the authoritative language much in the same way Latin is the authoritative language of the RCC.

 

[Matt Black]

I thought the OT of the Catholic Jerusalem Bible was essentially a translation from the LXX?

 

[Bro. James]

Matthew,

This is about canon--the one known as Textus Receptus--the one not tainted by Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. To be sure, there is a lot of contention about who has the correct canon. Certainly there cannot be more than one Word of God. He wrote only one Bible. Many have died for having translated/believed in the text which God has provided in His providence.

Regardless of what the holy see and others would have us to believe, The Lord has preserved His Word and His people inspite of the onslaughts of hell carried out by the "pseudo christians". The powers that be called them heretics--of course--still do. Some of those "heretics" were safeguarding the real scriptures with their lives. One can learn Greek and Hebrew without having been to Oxford,Cambridge or Vatican U.

My, how we spend so much time in the Vatican Library! While we are there, shall we look up the list of banned/burned books? That is an interesting study too.

Selah,

Bro. James

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

But the TR is the NT only - it doesn't solve our debate as to whether the DCs are in the OT canon (although it is noteworthy that the KJV which contains the TR, also contains the DCs). In any event, the same questions apply: how do you know that the TR is the correct version? Or, indeed, if you want to explore the question further, which redaction eg: of Acts is 'truly' inspired? On what authority do you base that decision?

 

[Bro. James]

God wrote only one Bible. He said what He meant. He meant what He said. Any confusion thereof is surely not from God.

Re: Inspired and apocryphal in the same binding--a good source for comparison. To suggest that this represents a "just in case we missed one" is not warranted. One could bind the Bible and the Book of Mormon--that would not make them the Word of God, but it sure would be easy to tell which one was spurious.

God is able to reveal to His people without error. His also is able to maintain the Truth throughout the ages. Man has been unable to do so--man is depraved.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
God wrote only one Bible. He said what He meant. He meant what He said. Any confusion thereof is surely not from God.

Yes, but how do we - you, me, them - know which one it is? It's all very well you saying the TR, but on what do you base that pronouncement?

 

[Bro. James]

You have a lot of company trying to ride on the fence, brother. That path of reasoning leads mostly to a wide, deep ditch.

We will have to answer to the Word--whether we believe it exists or not. See I Cor. Ch. 3, the part about the works being tried in the fire.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I thought the OT of the Catholic Jerusalem Bible was essentially a translation from the LXX?

If I'm not mistaken I believe that the OT of the Jerusalem Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. However I may be wrong.
Nate

 

[JFox1]

I checked a web site about the Jerusalem Bible, and it was translated from Hebrew and Greek texts. One of the English stylists who helped the translators was J.R.R. Tolkien: http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html

 

[Eliyahu]

The reason why I commented on LXX in that way was because, I have noticed LXX translated OT on thought to thought principle and often deviated from the original meaning. If any translation reflect LXX exactly, it will look funny on many spots. Tricky translators may not translate it exactly on such spots and rectify it reflecting MT. Even in NT they did so. If the oldest is the best and B and Aleph are so good, then why is there no Bible version translated exactly from B and Aleph? Why did they include the story about the woman caught in the adultery(John 8:1-11)? Why did they have longer ending of Mark in bracket?
If they are convinced that those verses are not the part of the genuine Bible, why didn't they dare to exclude them? They are coward and have no faith in their ascertion.

If they are convinced about LXX and B, Aleph, A, then they should translate Bible based only on them. Then such bible will be read by nooooobody.

 

[Bro. James]

Now that we have figured out that God may have spoken to us in Holy Writ, what next? Will we do what He said. "Why do you call me Lord and do not what I say?", Jesus, circa 33 A.D.

Can Jesus find us in the "Hallowed Halls of Higher Textual Criticism?"

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[tragic_pizza]

Sweep around your own front door, my friend.