/lit/ - Literature

>>23399203
>I think they were based in not slavishly following the scholarship of the rabbis
Obviously because those guys were often incorrect. That's why they are a gnostic occult group from the middle ages in the first place. What would they know about something that has nothing to do with them like an ancient text?

>>23356869
>a composite text for Kang James
I have often seen people who are detractors of the King James translation say it's a composite text (as a way, I think, to create further confusion and misguide people) but they do not seem to have any real examples where this is the case. Based on what I can tell, detractors of the KJV say this about the KJV only as a way to make it look worse.

Based on my own investigation, the KJV follows closely to the Daniel Bomberg 1525 text in the Old Testament (though the KJV still includes Joshua 21:36-37, which was accidentally omitted in Bomberg's 2nd edition due to a parablepsis) and the Greek Received text in the New Testament. It is accurate to those sources and prioritizes accuracy even more than literalism (counterintuitive but a good thing, when it comes to things like idioms).

>>22419325
Those who assert there are "exegetical interpolations" are actually incorrect in this assertion. That is pretty much the base of the problem right there. God did indeed inspire the word a certain way, and those who attempt to tamper with those things, things which are higher than themselves (though they may seem to treat it like it's beneath them) will only get burned. They shouldn't trample God's word underfoot, then play dumb and act like they didn't know what they were doing.

>>22278036
This is irrelevant for the simple reason because Daniel 11:40 clearly says, "And at the time of the end," referring to the end times.

See Daniel 12:4,
"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

And Daniel 12:9,
"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

This is clearly referring to the events that John saw in the Apocalypse. Just look at how the book of Daniel ends, and compare it all to the book of Revelation. Compare Daniel 12:9 to Revelation 22:10. So whether the last bit matches the history of Antiochus isn't relevant, since Daniel 11:40 clearly begins by saying that what follows is going to happen at the "time of the end" or the "end times." So it will happen, in fact, it's one of the prophecies of the Bible still to come. We will eventually witness it ourselves, possibly even in this lifetime, unless the Lord tarries.

>>22237081
Theophanies and Christophanies are explained by the Holy Trinity.

>>22032787
The thing about it is that modern "Judaism" is nothing but satanism. Saul Alinsky, for example, openly dedicated his book to Lucifer.

It's no wonder that said religious group are the guys spreading sodomy and homosexuality. It's not a surprise that authentic (non-counterfeit) Christianity is diametrically opposed to it.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
- Jude 1:7

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"
- Second Peter 2:6

It says it in the Old Testament too.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
- Leviticus 20:13

>>21447907
>text
texts*

>>21374818
>>21376929
I only read the KJV for English because of its foundational influence on our language, but if you want to read Hebrew, seriously, just get a Tanakh in hollow type format, as published by Elias Hutter in three volumes in 1587. This format gives you an easy way to identify the root words of everything by making all of the inflectional letters hollow, and for words that don't actually contain their root it is written in small type above the word. This, I have been told makes the language worlds easier to read compared to trying to use some other format. Pic is an example of how it works, if this is your thing.

>>21371727
>Who knows if the human spirit rises upward
That's an inaccurate translation. It doesn't say "Who knoweth IF," but rather "Who knoweth the spirit..." See what it says in the verse I already quoted.

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" - Ecclesiastes 3:21

The answer to this rhetorical question is that God knows. Whatever modern version you use quotes this passage inaccurately, so it's an example of a bad translation. As the original Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the two. Man as opposed to beast.

>>21253264
The Hebrew Old Testament predates all of that, so I don't see a problem. The word of God said, Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Were there people trying to corrupt God's word? Most assuredly. But did they succeed in changing it? No, because the originals still persist in spite of any manmade attempt to change them. And if you don't believe God can do such a thing, then you aren't a bible-believer at all, so there are much bigger problems at that point.

There is all the evidence in the world that God preserved the word, both Old Testament and New Testament. By the way, the text you refer to as being a thousand years old, that isn't what the KJV used. It was discovered some time later and differs in some places that I know of – for instance, that text says "bandage" in 1 Kings 20:38,41 while the KJV and its source say "ashes" in both places – becoming the "Masoretic text" as exemplified in the Codex Leningradensis. This was used in translations such as the modern New King James and the many alexandrian translations (NIV, etc). It differs somewhat from the true Hebrew Old Testament. But it seems overall fairly similar, so people have inaccurately blurred the two together when they shouldn't have. What the KJV uses is actually the 1525 Bomberg Old Testament text, among other things. The screenshot is from another possible source they used, which is the Elias Hutter version of the Old Testament text that was first published in 1587, and later again in 1599 and 1603, which is the one that I usually use. These editions of the Old Testament were not edited or maintained by Masoretes, far from it, nor were they dependent on them for information about what the Hebrew Old Testament looked like. To say they were is a rather absurd suggestion considering that people have been reading the Old Testament for far longer than that group existed. Also, modern scholars try to "cope" by calling it the "pre-masoretic" text, even though if the text predates them, why would you still associate it with them?

IOW, the masoretes are not our only source for the Old Testament, and nobody had to rely on them for anything. They seem to have preserved something similar to the Old Testament, but not quite: For instance, the "Ben Asher Masoretic" differs from the originals in 1 Kings 20:38,41 as mentioned before. It is supposed to say "ashes" but instead says "bandage" in both verses. The KJV says ashes, so it is more accurate in this place. By the way, changing the word as is done here seems to undo a miracle.

OTOH, there are so many problems with the modern LXX (as handed down to us from Origen) that I don't even know where to begin. But to start, there is the fact that it has Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood of Noah has already taken place. This is a result due to the fact that it changes the patriarchs' ages around. Also numerous messianic prophecies are removed in the LXX by Origen.

>>21251731
Well first off, the statement is a future prophecy about what will happen. If you think about it, its placement here at the start of Adam's journey in the world outside of Eden is a necessary point of belief for all men that follow. They all have that promise to believe in that one day, a Redeemer will be born, and that this seed (singular) will crush the head of the serpent. Later prophecies expand further on what this will look like, but the placement of this as sort of the first of such prophecies, places the emphasis of importance on exactly who and what Christ will defeat. Consequently, this crushing of the serpent's head, is seen as an important aspect about Christ which is to be believed, if we take God's word here seriously. Other passages that deal with this particular thing can be found later in other messianic prophecies as well, such as in Psalm 91.