paps .. ang main message napreserved naman po.. (e.g. God is the creator of all universe; Jesus is the son of God; salvation thru faith in Christ, teachings ni Jesus etc)
if technicalities po mean niyo.. may lapses sa translation din. Most of the books translated to english (including kjv) is based on the Masoretic text (Hebrew copy ng original Hebrew texts).. which is corrputed.. May agenda kasi mga pharisees na nagsulat ng Masoretic. Many scholars' findings say the Septuagint (Greek text) is older than the Masoretic and is the uncorrupted copy of the original Hebrew text (which is lost na ewan anyare). Also, most old testament quotations we read in the new testament by Jesus and the apostles are from Septuagint, so it follows mas reliable siya. Also the writings in the dead sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch (Samaritan text) agrees with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic. The Septuagint also coincide more with the writings of the first-century bible scholar/historian Flavius Josephus.
Example deliberate alteration from Masoretic text is the vir gin birth of Mary to Jesus. In Masoretic it was change to "young woman" instead of a "vir gin". The motive behind this is to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. Later versions and updates on modern bible corrected this error.
Other errors po, could be unintentional, like the years in the ages of the patriarchs from Noah for instance. There is proof that a hundred years was drop in writing copies (that's why labo labo minsan ang chronology dahil
dito). Better explanation can be found in an apologist's youtube video (https:// youtu .be/ VI1yRTC6kGE) no space po.
Furthermore, in order to study the bible (beyond mere reading of passages), one must understand the context. In order to glean an understanding of biblical context, the reader (us modern people) must grasp the worldview and mindset of the writers; how life is during their time; what is the cultural and social settings etc. Hindi po pweding i-force natin ifit sa modern worldview yung nakasulat. Hindi po tayo ang original intended audience ng writers kundi mga ka-contemporary po nila. Kaya for people from the future (tayo) it doesn't make sense. Just imagine may sinulat ka ngayon, do you think fully mauunawaan yan ng people 2000years later? Existing nga now, iba ibang contexto depende saang lugar o bansa ka.. i-add mo pa ang time element diba?.. katulad din yan ng mga gay lingo for instance sa pinas.. if directly translated sa english minsan walang direct equivalent at di rin magets kasi naka-latched siya sa existing culture natin dito at social settings. (Wala akong maisip. Weak example: hagardo versoza ka na beshie). Or modern english slang like "lit" or "dope". Iba naman original meaning (english dictionary). If walang idea si 4019 human sa context ng usage, iba ang magiging interpretation niya.
With regards to bible version, personally i prefer NIV dati, but now ESV. why? Because of the passage in Genesis 9 about Ham's sin. (sa mga nakitang kung bible scholars and also ministers online, mas accurate daw usage ng words ng ESV) Yung phrase na "saw the n a k e d ness" (which is idiom/euphemism for "to have s e x"). Di lang modern people gumagamit ng euphemisms. Meron din silang (ancient people) sarili. More on this, if curious ka din, search
Na k e d Bible Podcast episode 159
Helpful tools:
-strong's concordance
-parrallel interlinear Greek/Hebrew
-Exegesis
-Bible scholars commentaries
-further readings in Ancient Near East culture (advanced)
~you may also check this NIV study bible:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.
~also check out N a k e d Bible Podcasts by Dr. Michael S. Heiser for scholarly take on the text
~biblehub.com is excellent online free source
Believe me paps, di kailangan magseminary.. anjan sa web mga resources.. maging mapanuri nga lang tayo sa reliability ng mga ito. Sorry ang haba.
Goodluck po and God be with you.
PH