The Bible

[Anonymous No.11097822]

Which Bible is the most accurate to be reading?

There are several versions of the Old Testament which are used for modern translations. All contain differences or missing verses. Manuscripts from A.D. may have been manipulated to support or discredit Jesus as the messiah.


>Masoretic Text (Tanakh)

1000 A.D. (Oldest Copy Found)

KJV is based on.

Missing Verse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_145

Isaiah 7:14
"Young Maiden" instead of "Virgin"


>Dead Sea Scrolls

150 B.C. (Oldest Copy Found)

ISV is based on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Version

"The team decided to translate the ancient term Israelite to the modern term Israeli. Israeli is a term coined after the formation of Israel in the 1940s."

Isaiah 7:14
"Young Maiden" instead of "Virgin"


>Septuagint

300 B.C. (Legend Claims, Scroll Never Found)
Fragment found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Rylands_458

360 A.D. (Oldest Copy Found)
Codex Sinaiticus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NRSV, NET, etc. is based on.

Isaiah 7:14
"Parthenos" or "Virgin"

[Anonymous No.11097944]

>>11097822
New Revised Standard Version

[Anonymous No.11098015]

>>11097822
Modern translations use the critical edition of the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) as well as consulting the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint, and occasionally the Peshitta, Vulgate and Targumim. Not just one source.

Your post is kind of nonsensical, your summaries of textual sources are plain wrong. And one of your examples is the obscure ISV that basically no one uses.

[Anonymous No.11098030]

>>11098015
Nice try with your guide that goes by "accuracy" but hides the source material it's being translated from.

https://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf

[Anonymous No.11098082]

>>11098030
The chart doesn't go by accuracy at all, read it again, it goes by translation style and denomination. I just explained the source material. That article cites DJD 38, which was published after several modern translations had been made (2000), and as the article itself says, that's a controversial reading because the text is faint.

[Anonymous No.11098093]

>>11097944
fpbp and

>>11098015
/thread

>>11097822
read the LXX, don't be a bitch

and for NT, just read NRSV and refer to the Kittel when you have a question about meaning or usage

[Anonymous No.11098101]

>>11098082
So accuracy of translating the source material.

So how do you know which source is the correct one and which are corrupt?

There's a reason why KJV believers don't trust the Septuagint and why others don't trust the Mesoretic Text.

[Anonymous No.11098368]

>>11097944
>New Revised
>Not Revised Second Edition
Miss me with that inclusive shit.

[Anonymous No.11098677]

Who /Douay-Rheims/ here?

[Anonymous No.11098740]

>>11097822
The Orthodox Study Bible

[Anonymous No.11098995]

New American Standard Bible

[Anonymous No.11099051]

Brenton's translation of the Septugaint was the most popular translation of the Greek OT for the longest. It resembles the King James style. The KJV and the Revised Version (RV) Also made translations of the apocrypha though I'm not sure what source they used. Brenton's translation is said to have made use of Codex Vaticanus.
There is also the NETS translation and the Orthodox Study Bible, not sure how they fare in comparison to the others

https://archive.org/details/Septuagint_201804
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/00-front-nets.pdf
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/