1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What makes the "Apocrypha", apocryphal

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by raymond, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    My statement was not in the form of a trade off. It is independant of any choice you may be making. I am simply saying that it would be foolish to assume that the translators of the first century had access to no more ancient documents than we do today 2000 years later.

    In my way of thinking it is an obvious statement.

    Also we do not know what "THEY" thought about "dynamic equivalence" or what rules they used for translating it from Hebrew to Greek or whether that was in fact MORE accurate than what we today view as the possible meaning of the Hebrew Text.

    I am claiming that the Author of Hebrews wrote by direct, divine inspiration as did the write of Psalms.

    I am claiming this because Pope Peter claimed it.

    Therefore you can not take the Hebrew OT and claim that modern translations are incorrect for leaving the text of Ps 40 as it reads in Hebrew.

    You also can not "Change" the text of Hebrews chapter 10.

    It is possible that an unknown manuscript in Hebrew had that wording - but until we actually GET ONE we don't know if the INSPIRED writer of Heb 10 is using dynamic equivalence, pure inspiration or vanilla translation to get the resulting Greek text. Our job is to Translate Heb 10 -- not tell you what the author had for breakfast.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The result being - your are arguing for tradition based on NOT having a text that you claim existed for Ps 40 and based on NOT having manuscripts that you claim were a lot different than what we have today. You are arguing from the "void" of what you don't have AS IF you knew the contents.

    Secondly you are arguing for tradition AS IF the basis for accepting sacred tradition (on translating the text) was its claim to having "access to better (and subsequently LOST) Bible manuscripts". NO sacred tradition ARGUES that case.

    But if you want me to say that I am open to listen to every time sacred tradition DOES make a claim to HAVING an older Bible manuscript than we have today and is doing a translation based on that accepted and older manuscript - you got it.
     
  3. raymond

    raymond New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bobryan>>But if you want me to say that I am open to listen to every time sacred tradition DOES make a claim to HAVING an older Bible manuscript than we have today and is doing a translation based on that accepted and older manuscript - you got it<<<

    Thanks Bobryan for participating in this thread. I can tell you put a lot of thought into your posts. btw do you know if any Hebrew Texts or fragments were discovered at Qumran or anywhere, that might support the Septuagint's alternative rendering of some of these passages?

    raymond

    your brother
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I am sorry to say that I do not. I also don't know what manuscripts the authors/translators of the Septuagint had when they did their translation.

    But I am always open to news.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...