Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | Morant61 | 31058 | ||
Greetings Serenetime! The textual variants of the various Greek texts really don't make any doctrinal differences. However, if we are trying to get back to the text of the original autographs, the newer translations will be more accurate for several reasons. 1) The authors of the Textus Receptus only had a very limited number of manuscripts to work with. Now, we have literally thousands. 2) The authors of the TR were only using manuscripts from basically one family of manuscripts. So, they pretty much agreed on every reading simply because they were all made from the same family. But, this also meant that they all contained the same "errors". 99.9 percent of the time, the TR and the newer critical texts will agree with one another. But, the newer texts will be closer to the originals. Concerning the Massorah, it has the same basic problems as the TR. It was created late, maybe as late as the 6th century a.d.. It only was applied to one text type, the Massoretic. And, the biggest problem, it only exists in bits and pieces. There is no complete Massorah in existence. It was their intention to use the Massorah to protect the text (good intention), but the text they "protected" had errors in it. So, they ended up perpetuating the errors, rather than protecting the text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | The Massorah? | OT general | LookingforTruth | 31107 | ||
Dear Tim, I believe it to be profitable to a reader of the Bible to compare all translations to each other. Some passages may be difficult to understand in one Bible and clearly understood in another. However, regarding what you have stated on the Massorah,"Concerning the Massorah, it has the same basic problems as the TR. It was created late, maybe as late as the 6th century a.d.", this information is not accurate. The Text had been fixed by the Sopherim before the Massorites were put in charge of it. The work by the Sopherim, was done under Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Text was set in order after the return from Babylon. This can be read about in Nehemiah 8:8 (compare Ezra 7:6,11). Those of the "Great Synagogue" were the ones who completed the work. The work is said to have lasted around 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C.. The Sopherim were the actual revisers and the Massorites were the custodians. The Talmud says the use of the Massorah leaves little room for deception. More information may be obtained in Dr. Ginsburgs Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Looking for Truth |
||||||
4 | The Massorah? | OT general | Morant61 | 31128 | ||
Greetings Truth! I should have clarified: The pointed version of the Massorah can be dated only as far back as the 6th or 7th century. The unpointed version is what you are referring to. However, this fixed text has been found to contain errors which were perpetuated by the Massorah itself. Either way, my point to Serenetime was simply that the Massorah was one of the earliest attempts to perserve the text, but it is not inspired itself. So, while it may be helpful and interesting, it is not Scripture. Further complicating the situation is the fact that there is not complete Massorah in existance. Dr. Ginsburg compiled his version from pieces. So, we aren't even sure what the entire Massorah looked like. For anyone interested, an article can be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10035a.htm Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | The Massorah? | OT general | Love Fountain | 31169 | ||
Dear Tim, As I stated in another post, I was having trouble signing on as Love Fountain so I used Looking for Truth which was a name I used before. Anyway, I went to the site you recommended, thanks for the referral. You state,"The unpointed version is what you are referring to. However, this fixed text has been found to contain errors which were perpetuated by the Massorah itself." Can you please provide specific information suporting this statement, I am very interested in the errors perpetuated by the Massorah itself? Bless you, Love Fountain |
||||||
6 | The Massorah? | OT general | Morant61 | 31173 | ||
Greetings Love Fountain! As I told Serenetime, I have enjoyed finding out more about the Massorah. I had heard about it, but I really didn't know much about it. So, I have had the chance to do some reading. The site I referred you to mentioned that said: "There is evidence that false pronunciations were fixed by Massorah centuries before the invention of points such as are seen in our present Massoretic text. At times such early translations as those of Aquila, Theodotion, the Septuagint and the Peshitto give evidence of precisely the same erroneous pronunciation as is found at the pointed Hebrew text of to-day." Source - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10035a.htm. I am assuming that when the text was fixed that the text itself contained some errors which were also fixed. I don't know the specifics though. However, I do know that the same kind of thing happened in the transmission of the Greek text. A particular family will continue to pass on a mistake in the parent document, which is one way that manscripts can be classified into families. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | The Massorah? | OT general | Love Fountain | 31191 | ||
Dear Tim, One thing definitely appears to be true is that anything man puts his hands on becomes soiled. I believe we must utilize all resources we can. Bless you, Love Fountain |
||||||