xoc

I was quoting the KJV, from the www.blueletterbible.org
(cut and paste job I admit)
The question might be, "what Bible was Paul quoting?" The translation from the KJV is more in line with the reasoning of Paul. Is this a prejudice of the KJV translators? Was Paul keeping using a Septuagint version that was more despised at a latter time over Masoretic, or vice versa?

I'm not going to argue that the KJV version is better than the New Oxford, certainly not that the KJV is the best.

Continuing the cut-and-paste job, from the NLT(not a great translation, but)


And from the NASB:

The RSV:

This one agrees with the New Oxford apparently.

Anyways, if you go here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...77-7144.html#9

you see Webster's, Young's, Darby's, ASV, and the HNV agree with the first interpretation. The Vulgate, no idea.

Of course the "English" translations aren't as authoritative as the earliest manuscripts that ought to be used for understanding it. The problem is, we don't have the original Hebrew text nor do we have a perfect understanding on all the implications of language of the Hebrew of that time. Are these English translations just being biased to Paul's view of persecution, or is his interpretation related directly to a common view and interpretation of the time? And if so, what is wrong with his view and how do we claim to have greater authority to understand the interpretation now than he, an ancient, learned Jew of that time did?

Before you answer*, I'm warning you that I'm not going to get into this any deepr because it's way beyond my knowledge and qualifications to get into it(and beyond possible time constraints if I really wanted to get into it, which would require so much reading I'm afraid with often a final opinion resting on historical speculations). I was just trying to give Bobzammel a less arcane answer than he'd received so far.

*edited to clarify: feel free to answer or not answer these questions as you will. I just mean I'm not going to follow these questions into the postulations of a rigorous Biblical scholarship, the best Bible interpretations, the best codecs, least corrupt manuscripts, etc. etc. and that endless train. It might not be neccesary to do that to explain why the New Oxford Translation might be a better translation then what Paul understood in his own time, I'm not sure.

Bobzammel

Paul used the Septuganit, which was a Greek version of the bible. Like today's KJV the translation was not perfect; yet people acccepted it as holy writ anyway. Many of the quotations--or perhaps misqoutations-from the New Testament are based primarily on the Septuganit version. They are also influenced to a degree by Jewish commentaries on the same scriptures.

BTW puns in Genesis also referring to Isaac's name are Sarah's laughter when she's told she will conceive. Genesis is loaded with wordplay--which points to it being more of a story than an actual historical account.