Message 1 of 2 (838099)
08-13-2018 9:57 PM
Bible translators are not upfront and honest about the fragmentary nature of the sources.
(The King James supporters are the worst at making false claims of "original manuscripts" when they have a very late MEDEIVAL eclectic jumbled text from 1 trillion pick&choose sources)
It is difficult to know how to answer because the witnesses are so fragmentary.
But just for clarity, perhaps a single text should be translated IF POSSIBLE.
Take the Old Testament.
I wish all translations would either translate an ENTIRE manuscript of the Septuagint or an entire manuscript of the Masorah.
Start with the Old Testament.
At least for every Old Testament book, the translators could pick 1 base text (whether Hebrew or Greek or whatever), then translate it.
Take one text for, say Genesis, and then translate it.
The Aleppo Codex could be a source.
Tell the Bible readers what text it is that is the source text, then translate it.
TELL READERS THE DATE!
I am (frankly) so sick of seeing modern translations smuggle in the Septuagint word "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14, while claiming to be using the Hebrew Masorah (which has the word for "young woman").
The Greek Gospel of Matthew quote does use the Septuagint, so "virgin" is fine to be used there.
As long as translators include a note saying that the extinct Hebrew Gospel of Matthew used the Hebrew text that says "young women".
And as long as the date of the SINGLE (Greek?)Gospel of Matthew used is given
(The Masorah didn't exist in the 1st century, but all Hebrew texts had the word for "young woman")
What year and text is the source-manuscript used in your Bible?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.