Thoughts on the OSB?

That's really low hanging fruit tho bruh.

I like it, the notes and whatnot are extremely helpful.

translating from the LXX, as is proper, is not a gimmick. All bibles should contain the Septuagint.

I want to fall for it but I'll resist.

I wonder how much the OT of it differs from the standard NKJV.

The Revised Version was the first translation to include a complete 2 Esdras.
If you like the NRSV you should see the NETS translation.

Otherwise you should use NTSC on analog equipment from North America, Japan, and some countries in Asia and LatAm )

It's pretty good, but I wish they had their own translation of the NT as well. I like the KJV, but not the NKJV NT as much (yes, there are actually some differences). Notes-wise, it's really quite good. Surprisingly. Even down to the liturgical commentary in Leviticus and Revelation (Orthodox tend to view Revelation as a liturgical model and don't engage in the Left Behind junk). I've only found one actual error that bugged me so far. The commentary about David's fight with Goliath. It seems the person who was commentating was still working from a Hebrew text.. and expresses awe at Goliath's size - 9 feet from the Masoretic. But OSB uses the Septuagint, and Goliath is more like 6'9". The translation did it right, but the commentator is off in their own world.

The translation of the NT by Laurent Cleework (think that's the name?) is good. It's gospel is even being used in some parishes for an altar version. Kind of reads like the Catholic NAB, but more traditional/patriarchal readings and without the gay notes.

Otherwise, I just stick with the good ole KJV.. and have all of the OT deuterocanon from RH Charles translation and Brenton's LXX.

I think they had different commentators for different books. The commentary on the Boom of Proverbs has a completely different tone than the rest of the commentaries. Also, the guy that wrote the preface to 2 Esdras seems to have believed that he was writing a preface for 4 Esdras(which is also called 2 Esdras in some places.) For example, he quotes something from chapter 12, yet the 2 Esdras found in the OSB only has 10 chapters. There's also a note in the commentary on Tobit that cites 2 Esdras when talking about Uriel, but Uriel is only mentioned in 4 Esdras, not 2 Esdras.

Ah, I haven't gotten around to those. Maybe these little things are more common than I thought. It's still a pretty neat study bible, but my obsessive tendencies prevent me from totally enjoying something like this.
For any Orthodox, I would just recommend the New Paragraph Study Bible. It's KJV with "Apocrypha" (almost the full canon) and double check it against some supplementary stuff (like RH Charles or Brenton, which I mentioned above). The most beautiful thing about it is is it's just the text and nothing but the text.. and done in a paragraph style (see image). But it doesn't hurt to have an OSB around.

Attached: ncpb.jpg (800x533, 91.48K)

I have one and like it. I use the NOAB RSV more often, though.

It's cute, but this is superior.

Attached: IMG_20190131_005246.jpg (3036x4048, 3.07M)

Tbh, that guy didn't know what he was talking about. Like some other user said he's low hanging fruit. It's like getting a kick out of beating a child in a race. If I could meet the reformed guy I would tell him to study up more on the subject.

Don't be a faggot. Seriously. If you're not even Orthodox, why push the Reformed theology junk here?

I barely can call it that either. It's Wayne Grudem's theology and others like Piper. Don't know why people in that school of thinking even read these people. They could just go to actual reformers.

Protestant study bibles are pretty bad in my experience. Compare the notes on the Psalms in the OSB to the ESV Study Bible. The OSB almost always explains how the psalm relates back to Christ while the ESV uses a purely historical method that explains what circumstances could have caused the psalm writer to create it, with little to no recognition of the spiritual content except in blatantly obvious cases (Psalm 2, 22, 23, 110, etc)

Yes, they can't even follow Christ's own example form the scriptures.. and even scoff at it with labels like "Analogical" interpretation. When Christology IS Christ's own usage. They're overly rationalist faggots and obsessed with the surface/literal meaning of everything. And eventually created bigger faggots than themselves with the more liberal, highly skeptical critical schools. They're the original root and responsible for it. Even Catholic study bibles use this crap. But Orthodox are the only ones who keep it real.

depends on the Bible. the RCVE2 is pretty good, and the "Catholic introduction to the Old Testament" treats divinely related scripture as divine

It does actually differ in certain places, since the procedure was using the Septuaginta and lining it up with NKJV's translation.

Basically this made it so that if the NKJV fumbled on the translation of the Septuaginta on certain places, it would be corrected accordingly and you can see that since there is plenty of little differences between OSB's OT and just the NKJV OT where a pure translation of the Septuaginta was more accurate but generally it's the same.

I like the RSVCE2 somewhat. Although it has some renderings where I think are "trying too hard".

For example, every instance of "cup" is changed to chalice.. Like "Father, if you are willing, remove this CHALICE". And they even use it in mundane passages, like when Jesus speaks of giving a child a cup of water, the translation renders it a "chalice" of water. lol

Or in the Transfiguration in Luke 9, and Moses and Elijah spoke of Jesus' departure, the RSVCE2 puts "exodus" instead of departure. Yes, the Greek there is "exodon", but this kind of language is neither archaic or more holy. It's trying too hard, as I said. Just like everything out of these Catholics. Their liturgies (just watch EWTN) are full of this behavior. It keeps me from enjoying the translation as much as I like (because I hate the original RSV's liberal renderings even more, believe me), but it reminds me too much of these people. The Orthodox can use traditional language too (almost all of the hymns and prayers are KJV-ish), but it's precise and never for these fake attempts at sanctimony.

Is no one going to mention the blatant contradictions from the LXX?

I guess once you leave the real Bible your standards just go right out the window.

Attached: BibleKJV.PNG (320x240, 132.7K)

What are you talking about? Put up or shut up.

Besides, the KJV relies on the LXX itself plenty. That's precisely why it's better than most English bibles, who even further take Jews and their texts at their word. Same goes for, say, Jerome and his Vulgate. These both came from a time in church when it still held up Christian readings.

I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious, but it's all there to see if you look. The easiest start is Psalm 22, for example. The actually Hebrew of verse 17 is "like a lion at my hands and feet". It makes ZERO sense. But that's the Masoretic.

The Septuagint is prophetic. It reads "They pierced my hands and feet." Pretty fitting for the famous Psalm that starts with Jesus' cry on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The KJV uses the LXX rendering. Because they're not liberals or Zionist tools and knew Christian tradition always said that the Jews corrupted their own scriptures and took prophetic references out of them.

And now it's been proven right with solid evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls shows the oldest Hebrew form that was there all along and reads just like the LXX. "They pierced my hands and feet."

Don't get me started, because this is just one verse of many, my friend.

Listen to this man. The masoretic text is a satanic corruption of the holy scriptures, edited to try and scrub the clear prophecy of Jesus. Any Bible that is based on the MT instead of the LXX is corrupted.

Attached: lxx_vs_mt3.jpg (769x993, 265.81K)

No. They applied the incorrect modern-Jewish/Yiddish translation of Psalm 2:12 in that.

The set of Vetus Latina has plenty of examples left over of how that verse was correctly translated (as it is in the KJV also) before someone decided to change it.

So you actually believe yiddish scholarship when they tell you what the Hebrew is supposed to mean then. That doesn't bode well.

The actual Hebrew says the same as the Authorized says, it's that simple.

It's completely up to you what you want to get started. Also someone posted the inaccurate chart again, so I guess we have that now.

Here's the pasted text for that (I've posted this many times but funny enough people keep using the chart even while shilling for translations that subvert Psalm 2:12):

Psalm 148:2
Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isaiah 29:18
And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Psalm 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zephaniah 3:11-12
In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain.
I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.

Psalm 72:17
His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Psalm 34:20
He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Psalm 69:21
They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

You know that some of us can actually read hebrew and know you're full of shit right? The MT has been edited. It's not a translation or interpretation issue, the text has literally been altered to say something different to what the LXX states. You can even compare it to the DSS and see the differences for yourself. Please stop trying this lame defense, it doesn't work when you can actually read the text and see the differences.

It clearly does not. The KJV uses what the LXX says in places where the MT has been altered.

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20800/greek-septuagint-in-kjv-old-testament-or-new-testament

"For the old testament, the Septuagint was used over the Masoretic test, where the reading found in it supported traditional Christian doctrine, more so than the reading found in the Masoretic text i.e. Psalm 22:16 "they pierced my hands and my feet.""

Go learn hebrew and find out your entire life has been a lie my dude.

And who am I supposed to "learn" it from according to you? A bunch of guys who use revised concordances?

No thanks, I have access to better scholarship.

If you have some real, defined problem with some real original language source or translation such as the KJV (which I suggested) then please feel free to bring it up at any time. Just not by making third hand claims about who used what as a source, when you don't even identify a real problem with any of the words.

>offers ESV study bible alternative
mfw

Attached: 1450200476218.jpg (600x480, 33.71K)

I don't think there are any good KJV onlyist scholars though. They're all hacks or they wouldn't be KJV onlyists.

Huh?

All I said originally was that the so-called Septuagint has blatant contradictions and the implication is that it should never be used for any reason. For instance, what we call the LXX has incorrect chronology in Genesis 5. It teaches that Methuselah outlived the flood.

Another couple examples is where they inserted the name Cainan into the geneology, and where they changed the 70 persons into 75 persons in Genesis 46.

75 is correct though. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that.

This guy admits that the Septuagint is not perfect at 18:43.

I've already responded to this video multiple times as well. Don't make me copy paste the whole thing and make multiple posts. Just read the following.

It's clear then that no Jewish effort to erase the original scripture is possible, God won't allow it to happen, so this is a whole realm of doubt that is not needed. The same can't be said for a translation known as Septuagint. The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the presumed given date for the translation.

Thus, from all the sources before these, there is only attested the existence of the first five books of Moses only as having been translated to Greek: the other books of the so-called Septuagint Old Testament being produced much later, as late as the 4th century AD. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the version of the Septuagint we have now is the same as that which was translated in pre-New Testament times. It is not the received original scripture after all, it's a translation, so it might have been altered. The version of Septuagint that we have today may have in fact been EDITED to include such things as Cainan from Luke 3, and ALL of the alleged quotations made by the New Testament writers— because the Septuagint as we know it was produced after the New Testament! Promoters of this manuscript, such as the video creator, constantly attempt to conflate the historical Pentateuch translation that was originally called "Septuagint", with the post-New Testament Septuagint (from Codex Vaticanus) that we actually have. But these are certainly not the same thing, the latter has clearly been influenced by the New Testament in its translation of the Old Testament, and the former consisted only of Genesis-Deuteronomy, which may have subsequently been edited to account for Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14.

The Septuagint is not, because the editors thought to modify the supposed error in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, based on Acts 7:14. And they even added a false explanation for the extra 5 people being the grandsons of Joseph. But there's one major problem. Those grandsons weren't born yet when this happened, and they forgot Deuteronomy 10:22! All versions say 70 there, the Septuagint and the originals both say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22. So the OT account of the Septuagint is in disagreement with itself, whereas the originals say 70 in all three places. This is tangible evidence that someone took the number 75 from Acts 7 and tried to change their version of the Old Testament in Genesis 46:26, and in Exodus 1:5 a few pages over, but they forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22, which still says 70.

Agreed. That's why it was preserved in the Septuagint even when the Jews meddled with the hebrew in order to expunge the clear references to Jesus.

I'm glad you were able to come to your senses on this. Let's build on this with the next logical implication. Since the original word of God were always preserved, it stands to reason that any clearly corrupt versions such as what the video creator points out at 18:43 cannot be it, but only the original source that does not have blatant contradictions is the true one.

Since we know, after all, now, that one infallible word that has no corrupt versions and no contradictions has always existed. It's been preserved. And fortunately for us, we have it.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

The KJV is a poor translation of the original word of God that exists as the Greek Septuagint

Ah yes, but the video creator points out at 18:43 that it is not perfect.

Not even the KJV translators say that about their own work. Read the "Translators to the reader" and note how much they relied on electic sources. KJV doesn't have one source text. Are that dense, that you couldn't understand what I just pointed out about Psalm 22? That was just one example where they deviated from a single source.

I love the KJV myself and even recommended it (I posted that recommendation of the Cambridge Paragraph version earlier). But it's not perfect. I really appreciate people defending it, but don't go Full Anderson on us. And especially don't go full Riplinger (she thinks the KJV itself also gives "new revelation". This is terrible heresy).

I'm talking about the sources they used to put together the translation. In fact the scholarship I was referring to previously, includes them.
To be specific, there are 252 places where the TR's of Stephanus, of Beza, and of the rest put together are different. So I'm aware of the chain of events surrounding this.
Well in this case there was no deviation actually. And if you have anything else to share, I'd be interested.

Rather, what's happened is there is… "poor" scholarship that has entered the field between then and now. The field has deteriorated. Now, there are all kinds of novel, and false, approaches being practiced.

Actually, they could have use any given "majority source" for the NT and it'd basically be the same. I don't mean to refer to anything with the NT in this discussion. It's fine. My problem is over reliance on Rabbinic sources. It's pozzed, man.

The rav's are entirely fake anyway. You should definitely stay away from their concordances and their commentaries, as they are not authentic but actually from the synagogue of Satan. Anything yiddish in origin is. They don't really follow anything though, not even their talmud. Because that like everything is just a tool to be reshaped at will, like anything that isn't the truth of scripture. So there's no point in studying it.

Attached: torah.PNG (679x764 292.46 KB, 177.09K)