EDIT: Actually the English on the side is only the ESV and not a direct translation of the Hebrew.
As you might know most bibles replace VIRGIN with YOUNG WOMAN or such. Especially “Jewish” versions such as the Complete Jewish Bible thereby denying important scripture. The Delitzsch’s translation of the New Testament into Hebrew actually uses VIRGIN to my amazement.
A 12 Century manuscript of the Peshitta. It actually is a complete version of the Peshitta but as mentioned 12th century. Containing 22 books it lacks the books of Revelation, III John, II Peter and Jude. Like other Peshitta versions it lacks these books as usual.
The book of Hebrew is damaged in the Khaboris Codex.
Here are 4 Syriac New Testament Manuscripts held in the Vatican:
Also known as the Sinope Gospels. Why the name?
The Sinope Gospels is a fragment of a 6th century illuminated Greek Gospel manuscript. The name comes from Sinope in Turkey.
Codex Sinopensis is written on purple dyed vellum.
Origin is probably Syria or Mesopotamia.
Matthew 7:7-22; 11:5-12; 13:7-47; 13:54-14:4.13-20; 15:11-16:18; 17:2-24; 18:4-30; 19:3-10.17-25; 20:9-21:5; 21:12-22:7.15-14; 22:32-23:35; 24:3-12.
Also contains illustrations
People often site (or is that cite?) Hebrew, Greek, Aramic has the biblical languages but this is not totally correct. The true languages of the bible, desputed version or manuscripts and undisputed is Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Hebrew-Aramic, Syrian and Syrian-Aramic (not sure how to really say this one).
Latin was used in the days of Jesus as the inscription on the cross was also written in Latin.
The only three languages on the cross was Hebrew, Greek, Latin. The language of the Peshita was not on the inscriptions on the cross.
On the Codex Bezae page doubt is cast on the Codex Bezae with some new edit. This was most definately inserted by someone that strongly believes in the Egyptian line of texts. The Textus Receptus comes from Codex Bezae as Stephanus used it to translate the Royal Edition.
Big difference between stupid and foolish. In Galatians 3 the Complete Jewish Bible calls the people “stupid”.
1 You stupid Galatians! Who has put you under a spell? Before your very eyes Yeshua the Messiah was clearly portrayed as having been put to death as a criminal! 2 I want to know from you just this one thing: did you receive the Spirit by legalistic observance of Torah commands or by trusting in what you heard and being faithful to it? 3 Are you that stupid? Having begun with the Spirit’s power, do you think you can reach the goal under your own power?
This is according to the Introduction to the New Living Translation from the Tyndale Publishers themselves . This is the sources that were used to make the NLT.
Translation Philosophy and Methodology
English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called “formal-equivalence,” “literal,” or “word-for-word” translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called “dynamic-equivalence,” “functional-equivalence,” or “thought-for-thought” translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style.
Both of these translation theories have their strengths. A formal-equivalence translation preserves aspects of the original text—including ancient idioms, term consistency, and original-language syntax—that are valuable for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the original-language text through the English translation. A dynamic-equivalence translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the text’s message and clarity in both devotional and public reading.
The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure.
The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.
On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader’s understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.
Translation Process and Team
To produce an accurate translation of the Bible into contemporary English, the translation team needed the skills necessary to enter into the thought patterns of the ancient authors and then to render their ideas, connotations, and effects into clear, contemporary English. To begin this process, qualified biblical scholars were needed to interpret the meaning of the original text and to check it against our base English translation. In order to guard against personal and theological biases, the scholars needed to represent a diverse group of evangelicals who would employ the best exegetical tools. Then to work alongside the scholars, skilled English stylists were needed to shape the text into clear, contemporary English.
With these concerns in mind, the Bible Translation Committee recruited teams of scholars that represented a broad spectrum of denominations, theological perspectives, and backgrounds within the worldwide evangelical community. (These scholars are listed at the end of this introduction.) Each book of the Bible was assigned to three different scholars with proven expertise in the book or group of books to be reviewed. Each of these scholars made a thorough review of a base translation and submitted suggested revisions to the appropriate Senior Translator. The Senior Translator then reviewed and summarized these suggestions and proposed a first-draft revision of the base text. This draft served as the basis for several additional phases of exegetical and stylistic committee review. Then the Bible Translation Committee jointly reviewed and approved every verse of the final translation.
Throughout the translation and editing process, the Senior Translators and their scholar teams were given a chance to review the editing done by the team of stylists. This ensured that exegetical errors would not be introduced late in the process and that the entire Bible Translation Committee was happy with the final result. By choosing a team of qualified scholars and skilled stylists and by setting up a process that allowed their interaction throughout the process, the New Living Translation has been refined to preserve the essential formal elements of the original biblical texts, while also creating a clear, understandable English text.
The New Living Translation was first published in 1996. Shortly after its initial publication, the Bible Translation Committee began a process of further committee review and translation refinement. The purpose of this continued revision was to increase the level of precision without sacrificing the text’s easy-to-understand quality. This second-edition text was completed in 2004, and an additional update with minor changes was subsequently introduced in 2007. This printing of the New Living Translation reflects the updated 2007 text.
The Texts behind the New Living Translation
The Old Testament translators used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as represented in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), with its extensive system of textual notes; this is an update of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also further compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on the meaning of difficult passages.
The New Testament translators used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS, fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (NA, twenty-seventh edition, 1993). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent, for the most part, the best in modern textual scholarship. However, in cases where strong textual or other scholarly evidence supported the decision, the translators sometimes chose to differ from the UBS and NA Greek texts and followed variant readings found in other ancient witnesses. Significant textual variants of this sort are always noted in the textual notes of the New Living Translation.
The Complete Jewish Bible is based on the Jewish Publication Society of America version of the Tanakh which itself was initiated by the Central Conference of American Rabbis which is based on Seligman Baeris translation of the Masoretic text.
Exodus to Deuteronomy was the C.D. Ginsburg’s Hebrew text which is based on portions of the Masorah because he didnt have originals available to him.
In Isaiah 7:14 Virgin is replaced with Young woman.
This video is just… and those Iron Goloms, wow!