I have an issue that it seems at least as far as I can tell, that all bibles are incorrect in various ways, as far as I can tell in my opinion.

Is there a bible that exists that has compared all texts rather than one source?

Using the LXX, Masoretic and Others etc? Or are they individually created separate from each other? If there an Masoretic text with the "flaws" changed to the LXX? etc. I'm just getting really frustrated with people making bibles without really doing a "proper job".

edited due to comments....

Bibles do this today...

Not really. As the dates don't add up apparently in regards to timelines = Masoretic = does not work apparently, and septuagint does, apparently = 7500 years roughly? Unless others are wrong? Also Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, they are all from 1 text each, and in all modern bibles and they contradict each other, right...

Two dissagreeing points are here from the hebrew in one corner and the septuagint in the other, so where are they right and wrong? and which bible is right?

Septuagint Errors and Question of its Inspiration

The Septuagint (LXX) vs. corrupted Masoretic

these two pages/sites show obvious issues that no-one has sorted out that I have ever heard of, unless someone knows of a translation that includes Pauls Septuagint verses (explaining why because if they were removed, Paul would contradict himself and the hebrew) and the reason why Paul should be included if he is falsely claiming things not true in scripture if the hebrew is read and therefore in error doctrinally.

Apparently, without the Septuagint Paul is basically removed, one site says. On the other side it says Origin mentions and the dates also, that the verses were removed by Jews from their texts to remove support to Christianity.

I do not think the Septuagint/LXX is great or the hebrew in particular, I think we all just want the truth.

  • 1
    St. Jerome ... pray for us. If only someone would make a Bible taking the Septuagint, the Masoretic and others into account. That would be a Bible that the people would really like to read. You might even find a good word to describe that Bible and put it in a language that most people at the time knew. – Peter Turner Mar 31 '20 at 18:54
  • 1
    Most modern English translations do this. – curiousdannii Mar 31 '20 at 22:13
  • 1
    Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn't mean that it's not a fact that they do consult the LXX, MT, Samaritan, etc. – curiousdannii Apr 1 '20 at 10:51
  • @curiousdannii just updated, check again,thanks – dave44 Apr 1 '20 at 10:58
  • 1
    @dave44 What you brought up has been known out in the open for decades. Everyone wish we have the Scriptures that St. Paul and Jesus would have used. But we don't have it. It may very well be that the version of Septuagint available to us is closer to what St. Paul have used, see example. We just need to make an educated guess on case by case basis when translating OT books. Are the discrepancies significant enough to cause major doctrinal issue within Christianity? I doubt it. Ages of people before Abraham aren't one of them. – GratefulDisciple Apr 1 '20 at 14:21

Every Bible translation has a target audience and a translation principle. No single translation can satisfy everyone. Modern English translations usually prioritize Masoretic over LXX but they will have footnotes indicating when the two differ. Each Bible will have Introduction specifying in detail which critical edition of Greek & Hebrew text they use, how literal / dynamic the translation, and some conventions they use for the names of God, for example. That is how they do their "proper job".

If you prefer LXX there are specialized LXX translations that recently came out such as NETS.

If you are into comparing variants of manuscript, you usually need to go with Greek edition and consult the accompanying Apparatus such as this one.

There maybe Greek / Hebrew edition Bible that have variants side by side. But a much easier and flexible approach, the one that scholars are using, is to use powerful scholarly software such as Logos that allows you to turn on / off several layers to interspersed Greek/Hebrew with English (or other languages), or display parallel manuscript / translations side by side.


Is there a bible that exists that has compared all texts rather than one source?

This is a complicated question. I'll just point out a few things, focusing on the New Testament

  • Various reference versions of the Greek NT have been created. They include in-depth notes when they find differences in the numerous source documents.
  • Modern translations are done by committees of experts. They use a reference version as well as their own knowledge of the source documents.
  • The committee has to agree on a common approach to the many issues in translating Greek to English, starting with reading level and readability versus literalness.

The reason modern translations vary is that the Greek and English grammars are very different. In particular, Greek is much more nuanced, which forces translators to decide what the author meant to say.

In addition, I have noticed that certain traditions from previous translations influence modern translations in small ways. These can produce insignificant shortcomings.

Having recently translated Matthew myself, I can testify as to how difficult producing a top-quality translation is. I suggest using several well-established translations and comparing them.

  • edited question. – dave44 Apr 1 '20 at 11:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.