Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The Massorah? | OT general | serenetime | 31020 | ||
Kalos, You saying I'm bashing, but I say I'm using them as an example. Doesn't it make sense that the earlier the translation of the Bible that it would easier to translate back to the original language which would give a better understanding of the Word? Later translations (I feel, and just my belief) can make it more difficult to go back to the original manuscripts, and therefore if using a much later translation makes it almost impossible to get the full meaning. The NIV, and the Amplified, etc. are fine if one chooses to use them, but I prefer to use the King James Bible, and I'm talking about the 1611 version. I meant no offense toward Tim, but I believe strongly in the Massorah because it's a protecting a wall so to speak of the original manuscripts (languages) and therefore makes it more difficult to mistranslate. Obviously there had to be a reason for the Massorah, because some men, or women would, or could translate the Word incorrectly because let's face it were human. And these translations could of been meant to confuse one intentionally. I'm just being realistic. Oh it could sound better, but some could not getting the full meaning of the Manuscripts and that's my concern, and believe it should be everyone's concern, don't you agree??? Also in the 1611 Version at the beginning of it there is a letter to the reader warning of this very thing I'm speaking of. One should check it out! In the Love of the Living Water, Serenetime | ||||||
2 | The Massorah? | OT general | EdB | 31041 | ||
Serenetime Some of the newer translations use earlier translations than the KJV did. So if what your saying is true then the new translations should be our first choice. See you just proved you shouldn't bash newer translations. EdB |
||||||
3 | The Massorah? | OT general | serenetime | 31060 | ||
Greetings EdB, I appreciate your note, but I believe to the contrary. I do not agree and will not ever agree that the later translation are closer to the original translations of the original dead sea scrolls and others, but thank you for your input, and I feel that what you say doesn't make sense to me. Nowhere has there even a mentioned of the 1611 Version of the King James Bible. Are you even familiar?? In the Love of the Living Water, Serenetime | ||||||
4 | The Massorah? | OT general | EdB | 31066 | ||
Serentime Dead Sea scrolls and KJV do you have any idea about what your talking? Whether you want to believe it or no, the facts are some of the newer translations use older manuscripts than KJV. Also did you know the Great Bible and Geneva Bible existed before the KJV and were probably used to help tranlated the KJV. Also the first bible in North America was probably the Geneva Bible carried by the pilgrims. KJV was to them what RSV is the KJV. If you really believe what you say you should be using a Geneva Bible. Stick to a subject you knwo something about. EdB |
||||||
5 | The Massorah? | OT general | serenetime | 31137 | ||
EdB, OK,so the Geneva Bible was before the KJV. So why don't folks like you use the Geneva bible. Wouldn"t it make sense to do so. Oh, and it's so nice to hear from you. Serenetime | ||||||
6 | The Massorah? | OT general | EdB | 31216 | ||
Why would I want to use it? I think the newer translations are better. It was you that said KJV was better because it was older. I was just telling you the Geneva Bible was even older. Besides I don’t talk old English, so why do I want something that I have to translate again. Don't you see your theory has no merit? When the King James was translated it was the best that could be produced but new discoveries have been made, and better manuscripts found. The newer translations many times reflect closer meaning of the original translations. Beside they often are written in today’s common English so anyone can read them, without fighting old and antiquated words. EdB |
||||||
7 | The Massorah? | OT general | serenetime | 31245 | ||
EdB, The Massorah is from the root (masar), so as to commit it to his trust. Hence the name is given to the small writing (Massorah Magna) referred to, because it contains information necessary to those into whose trust the Sacred Text was comitted, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly. the Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This has been the work of the sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). their work under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh.8:8, Ezra7:6,11. The men of the Great Synagogue completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C. The Sopherim were the authorised revisers of the Sacred Text; and their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorised custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called "A fence to the scriptures," because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combination of words. All this not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word. This Massorah is not contained in any one Manuscript. No Manuscript, contains the whole, or even the same part. It is spread over many manuscripts, and Dr. C.D. Ginsburg has been the first and only scholar who has set himself to collect and collate the whole, copying from every available in the libraries of many countries. When the Hebrew Text was printed, only the large type in the columns was regarded, and the small type of the Massorah was left unheeded, in the Manuscripts from which the Text was taken. When translators came to the printed Hebrew Text, they were necessarily destitute of the information contained in the Massorah; so as the Revisers as well as the Translators of the Authorised Version carried out their work without any idea of the treasures contained in the Massorah; and therfore, without giving a hint of it to their readers. In LOVE of the Father, SERENETIME | ||||||
8 | The Massorah? | OT general | EdB | 31279 | ||
Serenetime Your point is? You made a comment that the new translations were leading people astray. I responded that was not true and gave evidence that wasn't the case. You then said the older the translation the closer to the original. Again I said that wasn't rue and gave more evidence. I then showed you that there were earlier translations than the KJV and if you really thought your idea was right, I asked why you didn't use one of them. Now you give me this discourse on Massorah. This is about what Tim has been telling you all along. So your point is? EdB |
||||||