[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 62 KB, 430x495, Leningrad_Codex_Carpet_page_e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20355997 No.20355997 [Reply] [Original]

Did the Jews corrupt the Masoretic Text to remove references to Jesus and to exalt their status in the world?

How am I supposed to know which Bible translation to get if the Masoretic Text is corrupt (which KJV is based on) AND the Alexandrian Texts (all other Bibles) are also corrupt?

>> No.20356001

read the hermetica instead

>> No.20356006

>>20355997
All of them. Now indeed are you supposed to have a coherent cult? You can’t. The whole thing is bs from the start. Wake up.

>> No.20356441

>>20355997
the Bible is translated based on a comparison of the LXX, Peshitta and MT.
the latter for the Hebrew concordance, the other two to fix anything that differs between them.
basically all of those changes are changed back (and we're proved as proper because the Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement with LXX and everything else we've got.)

>> No.20356578

>>20355997
>Did the Jews corrupt the Masoretic Text to remove references to Jesus and to exalt their status in the world?
Sort of. Look up the 134 emendations of the sopherim.

>> No.20356605

>>20356441
This, in christian OTs the LXX always takes precedence before the masoretic text when there's disagreement between the two. It makes sense even in a secular sense, too, considering that the LXX is centuries older than the masoretic text.

>> No.20357890
File: 284 KB, 1079x1917, 349561342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20357890

No, the alternative to the Masoretic is clearly the corrupt one. The Septuagint was written under duress. All modern versions are based on the Masoretic. The King James is entirely Masoretic, and all others sprinkle in some Septuagint. There is *no* Bible basely solely on the Septuagint, because it would be significantly shorter.

>> No.20357896
File: 504 KB, 2048x1288, 3495613135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20357896

>> No.20357973

>>20355997
The KJV gives preference to the Vulgate in every passage with Christological implications.

>> No.20357995

>>20357896
>I like this passage more, therefore it's more accurate

>> No.20358335
File: 23 KB, 257x388, Septuagint in English.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20358335

>>20355997
Read the Septuagint, it's textually older and more reliable than the Masoretic text.

>> No.20358534

>>20358335
That volume's OT is not the LXX. It's a half-assed MT. Read R. Grant Jones' written review on the OSB from the early 2000s.

>> No.20358593

>>20356441
>>20356605
So which Bible translation do I get?

I have the NASB but then I find out it says:

>Deuteronomy 32:8
>According to the number of the sons of Israel.

>"The Hebrew is taken from the Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Modern Hebrew translation for the New Testament."

Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX say "sons of God".

So NASB has the wrong reading.

>> No.20358597

>>20358593
Just look up the "Notes on the Septuagint" by R. Grant Jones, where he has lengthy charts comparing the LXX/DSS to the MT, and correct the NASB with your own pencil.

>> No.20358619

>>20358597
I guess that is the only way, because it appears there is no pure translation.

>> No.20358633

>>20358619
https://www.areopage.net/PDF/LXXNotesFeb06.pdf
pg. 50 to 150 (Appendix C) compare NT quotes from the OT with the LXX and MT
pg. 151 to 167 (Appendix D) are LXX/DSS agreements against the MT

>> No.20358649

>>20358633
What is the best base Bible translation to apply corrections to?

KJV / NKJV have extra verses.

NASB / ESV have missing verses.

>> No.20358664

>>20358649
Probably the KJV/NKJV. Easier to cross out verses (or bracket them) than to write them in.