Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

[TheLightWithin]

Dan McClellan again - I appreciate his commentaries.

The first one above is broadly about changes in the text of the bible in bible history - compilation, editing, redaction, and translation
He discusses the history, and how scholars and translators look at and compare the source materials they currently have.

The second one is his response to another content creator who seems outraged by differences she sees in modern translations. She seems to think there is something untoward in the efforts to make more accurate translations I don't know how much she looked into it for explanations or to understand She just seems to think there is something bad going on...(!?) He makes an effort to clarify for viewers who are interested.

 

[wil]

I found this interesting. An updated NRSV seems to be his current bible of choice? Which is the bible Unity used... I'd be interested to hear what Dan thinks of the Lamsa, the Message, and the five gospels...but I can't find anything...yet.

 

[RabbiO]

@wil -

The Message, at least in regard to Hebrew scriptures, is not a translation. It is a paraphrase.

 

[RabbiO]

@wil -

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “the five gospels”. Could you desvribe a bit more fully?

As for Lamsa, aren’t there really two questions? There is the question of Lama’s translation, but there is also a question as to the Peshitta itself.

 

[wil]

@wil -

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “the five gospels”. Could you desvribe a bit more fully?

As for Lamsa, aren’t there really two questions? There is the question of Lama’s translation, but there is also a question as to the Peshitta itself.

The five gospels is not a translation but a red letter bible...but instead.of.just read they have red for.we think jesus said that, pink for could be him, maybe paraphrased, Grey for doubt it, and black for naw, we.dont think it is