Mario asked me what I was trynig to
accomplish . Basically to get more of you to learn to read
the Scriptures from the original language.
In re Alan's post at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/dec2011/alant1230.htm
, The Hebrew version of Matt 4:4 passed down by Messianic Jews
matches the Hebrew Scriptures perfectly. It is only in
translations of the New Testament from Greek that this is a
Matthew says "Kingdom of Heaven" in MANY places where parallel
Mark says "kingdom of God" because Matthew wrote to a Jewish
audience. Jews use euphemisms to avoid saying the Name of
God, such as saying "HaShem" instead of "YHWH" and "Heaven"
instead of "God" and in our more modern tiems, "G-d" instead of
"God". That a case where Mark was drawing from the
original Gospel of Matthew using Matthew as his source.
In re how Paul quoted Hab 2:4, You're using an example of the
issue I mentioned earlier. Your'e quoting from a
translation of Greek Galatians and comparing it to Hebrew Hab
2:4. How much do we expect a quote to be word-for-word
when it is translated from one language to another? We
don't. It is as close as the translators got it. The
problem is translating from Hebrew to Greek to English. Is
the possessive nature really important here that a translator
would feel like he missed it if he didn't include it? I
don't think so.
My point is this; There are those alleging that the KJV is so
word-for-word inspired we don't need to study the original
language. If that's the case, why doesn't it quote itself
correctly? Wouldn't that 'inspiration' handed down to ONLY
the English have fixed that problem? The fact that the KJV
has the same problems as any other translation in regard to how
the Greek NT quotes the Hebrew tanach proves it is not some sort
of spceial translation we can trust more than any other.
The Scriptures in their original language is what is
important. If you need a translation, read from a
different one each year. Compare them. Don't get
stuck on the idea that one translation is above all others.