Growth New Testament Greek for free

[Anto9us2]

Jesus also called Jonah "the Prophet Jonah".

Daniel and Jonah are unique in that their AUDIENCE was not dwellers in Israel or Judah, but in Daniel's case, reporters to Babylon and kings of Babylon and Medo-Persia, and Jonah's audience was Nineveh.

Daniel's book is further unique in that it was written in Aramaic and Hebrew, and parts are only in Greek, in Catholic and Orthodox additions to the Daniel in the 66 books of Protestant Bible.

Far be it from me to tell Orthodox and Catholics that their book of Daniel has extra stuff in it, but in the Greek addition to Daniel, Daniel is in lion's den for a whole week, as opposed to just one night. Beyond that, at the end of the week, Daniel is brought food by Habakkuk - a prophet a century earlier than the time of lions den

 

[jasonc]

Jesus also called Jonah "the Prophet Jonah".

Daniel and Jonah are unique in that their AUDIENCE was not dwellers in Israel or Judah, but in Daniel's case, reporters to Babylon and kings of Babylon and Medo-Persia, and Jonah's audience was Nineveh.

Daniel's book is further unique in that it was written in Aramaic and Hebrew, and parts are only in Greek, in Catholic and Orthodox additions to the Daniel in the 66 books of Protestant Bible.

Far be it from me to tell Orthodox and Catholics that their book of Daniel has extra stuff in it, but in the Greek addition to Daniel, Daniel is in lion's den for a whole week, as opposed to just one night. Beyond that, at the end of the week, Daniel is brought food by Habakkuk - a prophet a century earlier than the time of lions den

The jews have something different about Daniel in what is in it ,I have heard

 

[Anto9us2]

I was under the impression that the Jews at Jamnia rejected as scripture passages that are only in Greek - parts of Esther and Daniel - which Catholics and Orthodox view as scriptural.

 

[Anto9us2]

The Complete Jewish Bible that you referenced, it does NOT contain the Greek- only account of Daniel being in the den for a whole week and Habakkuk (already deceased) bringing food to Daniel.

 

[jasonc]

The Complete Jewish Bible that you referenced, it does NOT contain the Greek- only account of Daniel being in the den for a whole week and Habakkuk (already deceased) bringing food to Daniel.

Bel and the dragon.

Our modern bible uses a Greek translation from the Catholic who influenced tyndale ,and the kjv,the textus recipticus

 

[OzSpen]

Our modern bible uses a Greek translation from the Catholic who influenced tyndale ...

jasonc,

To which modern Bibles do you refer with this statement? What is 'a Greek translation from the Catholic'?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I believe when Jesus told the thief that he would be with Jesus that day in paradise...it's referring to hades in Luke 16.

wondering,

Why don't you join me is discussing this in the new thread I've started, 'What happens at death?'

Oz

 

[jasonc]

jasonc,

To which modern Bibles do you refer with this statement? What is 'a Greek translation from the Catholic'?

Oz

The textus recpticus was translated by a Catholic priest who knew Tyndale want to reform the Catholic Church. His was correcting the Greek errors that were in the earlier Bibles so it came up with the textus receptus.

Perfect,no.the lxx has the longer book of Daniel ,and apocryphal books '. if the lxx is of God then you have to reconcile the extra parts to it that Protestants don't use this is why I like the masoretic text

 

[jasonc]

The old akjv 1611 and tyndale English bibles had the apochypra and so did the German bible .

These were taught as history ,macabees,the others as stories but none of it inspired .

But we digress into what is canon

 

[OzSpen]

The textus recpticus was translated by a Catholic priest who knew Tyndale want to reform the Catholic Church. His was correcting the Greek errors that were in the earlier Bibles so it came up with the textus receptus.

Perfect,no.the lxx has the longer book of Daniel ,and apocryphal books '. if the lxx is of God then you have to reconcile the extra parts to it that Protestants don't use this is why I like the masoretic text

Jason,

Erasmus of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the compiler of the Greek texts for the Textus Receptus (TR), could not be a reformer because he was born in 1466. Martin Luther, who led the Reformation, wasn't born until 1483. Of course Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest who gathered the Greek MSS for the TR. There was no other church at that time, so there was no other training than through the RCC.

Erasmus only used 7 MSS and they dated to about the 12th century. Of these MSS, the last 6 verses from the Book of Revelation were missing so he translated from the Latin Vulgate to Greek. No Greek MSS since then has been found that provides exact agreement on those 6 verses with the TR. The TR was a printed text that was a rushed publication in 1516.

if the lxx is of God then you have to reconcile the extra parts to it that Protestants don't use this is why I like the masoretic text

I do not accept any translation, whether LXX or Masoretic Text, is of God. The only God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) is the original text.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

He

Jason,

Erasmus of Rotterdam, the compiler of the Greek texts for the Textus Receptus (TR), could not be a reformer because he was born in 1466. Martin Luther, who led the Reformation, wasn't born until 1483. Of course Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest who gathered the Greek MSS for the TR. There was no other church at that time, so there there was no other training than through the RCC.

Erasmus only used 7 MSS and they dated to about the 12th century. Of these MSS, the last 6 verses from the Book of Revelation were missing so he translated from the Latin Vulgate to Greek. No Greek MSS since then has been found that provides exact agreement on those 6 verses with the TR. The TR was a printed text that was a rushed publication in 1516.



I do not accept any translation, whether LXX or Masoretic Text, is of God. The only God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) is the original text.

Oz

He didn't act as Luther ,but ok so you,are using what original Greek bible from the time of that completion,as you,well know the early bible was put together 100 years after that.

The oldest tanakh predates the Qumran by a few hundred years,if all,scripture is inspired ,then why are we not accepting the Catholic bible?

 

[OzSpen]

He

He didn't act as Luther ,but ok so you,are using what original Greek bible from the time of that completion,as you,well know the early bible was put together 100 years after that.

The oldest tanakh predates the Qumran by a few hundred years,if all,scripture is inspired ,then why are we not accepting the Catholic bible?

jasonc,

You raise a couple important issues regarding transmission of Bibles that I cannot discuss in detail here. It would take a couple courses in bibliology to cover these procedures.

1. You and I both know neither of us can read from the original Greek Bible because we don't have access to it. That should not deter us from reading copies of the original, as in the Textus Receptus, or better still, the Greek NT produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge.

I have a $20 note in my wallet that I'll spend some time this week. It is not the original but represents (duplicates) the original which is in the federal Mint in Canberra. I haven't seen the original.

Not having the original Greek NT should not prevent us from using a copy of the original. How do I know it resembles the original. With the $20 note, I compare it with other $20 notes. With Greek MSS, papyri investigators compare many MSS to arrive at an edition close to the original.

2. You said: 'as you, well know the early bible was put together 100 years after that'.

The earliest canon of Greek NT that we are aware of is the Muratorian fragment/Canon that is a Latin MSS containing portions of 22 of the 27 NT books. It dates to about AD 170.

The NT canon of Scripture was finalised in AD 397 at the Council of Carthage.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

jasonc,

You raise a couple important issues regarding transmission of Bibles that I cannot discuss in detail here. It would take a couple courses in bibliology to cover these procedures.

1. You and I both know neither of us can read from the original Greek Bible because we don't have access to it. That should not deter us from reading copies of the original, as in the Textus Receptus, or better still, the Greek NT produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge.

I have a $20 note in my wallet that I'll spend some time this week. It is not the original but represents (duplicates) the original which is in the federal Mint in Canberra. Not having the original Greek NT should not prevent us from using a copy of the original. How do I know it resembles the original. With the $20 note, I compare it with other $20 notes. With Greek MSS, papyri investigators compare many MSS to arrive at an edition close to the original.

2. You said: 'as you,well know the early bible was put together 100 years after that'.

The earliest canon of Greek NT that we are aware of is the Muratorian fragment/Canon that is a Latin MSS containing portions of 22 of the 27 NT books. It dates to about AD 170.

The NT canon of Scripture was finalised in AD 397 at the Council of Carthage.

Oz

100 years after the last book,depending on if you,are futurist or preterist .since you,read it and teach your version of the Greek,and Hebrew,one can learn to speak,koine Greek.I met one and served with her.lawyers can be taught it along with latin.

She choose it. So it begs which bias which we all have ,which is correct .no,one will agree 100 percent.

Not all,are able called to be like that .a full time musician whose calling is that ,might not .what of translations .

Copies are still that as languages do evolve ,try reading american English,
Gay at present. Means homosexual,yet decades ago it was happy.
A fag is a pejoritave yet it meant cigar,stick even here .

 

[OzSpen]

He

He didn't act as Luther ,but ok so you,are using what original Greek bible from the time of that completion,as you,well know the early bible was put together 100 years after that.

The oldest tanakh predates the Qumran by a few hundred years,if all,scripture is inspired ,then why are we not accepting the Catholic bible?

jasonc,

"why are we not accepting the Catholic bible?"

I don't know who 'we' are.

I regularly read Roman Catholic translations of the Bible, particularly the modern ones such as:

New American Bible (Revised Edition) - NABRE, and
The New Jerusalem Bible.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

100 years after the last book,depending on if you,are futurist or preterist .since you,read it and teach your version of the Greek,and Hebrew,one can learn to speak,koine Greek.I met one and served with her.lawyers can be taught it along with latin.

She choose it. So it begs which bias which we all have ,which is correct .no,one will agree 100 percent.

Not all,are able called to be like that .a full time musician whose calling is that ,might not .what of translations .

Copies are still that as languages do evolve, try reading american English,
Gay at present. Means homosexual, yet decades ago it was happy.
A fag is a pejoritave yet it meant cigar, stick even here .

You didn't respond to the content of what I wrote.

You wrote: '100 years after the last book,depending on if you,are futurist or preterist ...' What has that to do with the topic of bibliology we are discussing?

 

[jasonc]

You didn't respond to the content of what I wrote.

jasonc,

"why are we not accepting the Catholic bible?"

I don't know who 'we' are.

I regularly read Roman Catholic translations of the Bible, particularly the modern ones such as:

New American Bible (Revised Edition) - NABRE, and
The New Jerusalem Bible.

Oz

Do you believe that bel,and the dragon,macabees are inspired .

Reading different versions is ok but .again if I can bypass the pastor in teaching myself the word like that ,why have any teacher,not everyone is called to be on your level as a teacher.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you believe that bel,and the dragon,macabees are inspired .

Reading different versions is ok but .again if I can bypass the pastor in teaching myself the word like that ,why have any teacher,not everyone is called to be on your level as a teacher.

jasonc,

In the second paragraph you change topics so I won't address that.

Of course I don't believe Bel and the Dragon and the Books of Maccabees are God-breathed. They were not in the Hebrew OT but were added by the LXX translators.

All one needs to do is take a read of Bel and the Dragon (Daniel ch 14) and the Book of Tobit to see some of the fanciful stuff in them.

The Books of Maccabees do contain some valuable historical information but they are no more inspired than Manning Clark's History of Australia. To discuss reasons gets back to content and of bibliographical method. That's for another thread.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

jasonc,

In the second paragraph you change topics so I won't address that.

Of course I don't believe Bel and the Dragon and the Books of Maccabees are God-breathed. They were not in the Hebrew OT but were added by the LXX translators.

All one needs to do is take a read of Bel and the Dragon (Daniel ch 14) and the Book of Tobit to see some of the fanciful stuff in them.

The Books of Maccabees do contain some valuable historical information but they are no more inspired than Manning Clark's History of Australia. To discuss reasons gets back to content and of bibliographical method. That's for another thread.

Oz

which the lxx was used by the early church not the mss or what ever it was.the jews used a Hebrew that was closer to modern then the mss(proto Hebrew), the jews did have that and it was removed in the first century after tish ma bav.

yet the lxx was written in greek for Ptolemy. if it was inspired and is acceptable as it was quoted by the apostle paul and the writer of Hebrews. we have a problem.
modern jewry doesnt accept either but uses the talmud zohar and also the gemera system for interpretation of deeper meanings and they say that goes back to pre ad 70. yet they dont accept that. odd

im not suggesting we throw out the lxx just that it did have them and was used by God to spread the word of the tanakh , remember the majority of jews in exile didnt speak or read hebrew.

aramaic is very close to old hebrew and in wedding hebrew isnt used and aramaic is used by the rabbi and the husband when he recites his part. the marriage contract is signed in aramiac and written in aramiac. it goes back to the time of the diaspora.

 

[GodsGrace]

If we have a scripture that Jesus descended into hell, then Jesus descended into hell.

If we have a parable where Jesus says beggar Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom, then we had an Abraham's Bosom at the time, even if beggar Lazarus and rich man are made-up people.

Angels falling from heaven and now becoming demons, well, chronology in Revelation seems all scrambled. That would have happened prior to man's existence. Some things in Revelation already happened, are happening now, and will happen in the future, IMO.

Most theologians believe that the story of Luke 16, the Beggar and Lazarus was NOT a parable but a true story since Jesus used the name of a real person. He did not name persons in any other parable.

Where does the N.T. state Jesus went into hell?

 

[GodsGrace]

which the lxx was used by the early church not the mss or what ever it was.the jews used a Hebrew that was closer to modern then the mss(proto Hebrew), the jews did have that and it was removed in the first century after tish ma bav.

yet the lxx was written in greek for Ptolemy. if it was inspired and is acceptable as it was quoted by the apostle paul and the writer of Hebrews. we have a problem.
modern jewry doesnt accept either but uses the talmud zohar and also the gemera system for interpretation of deeper meanings and they say that goes back to pre ad 70. yet they dont accept that. odd

im not suggesting we throw out the lxx just that it did have them and was used by God to spread the word of the tanakh , remember the majority of jews in exile didnt speak or read hebrew.

aramaic is very close to old hebrew and in wedding hebrew isnt used and aramaic is used by the rabbi and the husband when he recites his part. the marriage contract is signed in aramiac and written in aramiac. it goes back to the time of the diaspora.

Very interesting.