Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker. I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?

There is a new United Bible Society Greek New Testament coming out in June. Someone I follow posted something that implied the translation committee may include atheists, unbelievers, and Resurrection-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find out who is on that committee to verify if that is true or not. Does anyone here know? Thank you.

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

I am aware that it was most likely originally composed in Latin (this is why it is highly unlikely that St. Athanasius himself wrote it) but has anyone ever tried translating it into Koine Greek? If so, where would I be able to find the text?

I've read where The Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in the Coptic language (actually some sayings are believed to have been written in Greek predating the Coptic) but I've also seen where scholars have 'reversed engineered' the Coptic back into a Greek dialect. I'm wondering if such a document is easily accessible and its location. Specifically I'm looking for the Greek (from Coptic?) for saying number 108: "Jesus said, 'He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.'"

Is the Nestle-Aland *Novum Testamentum Graece* or the United Bible Societies *Greek New Testament* available in .sword format, for use with software such as Xiphos or AndBible?

Does anyone know if there are digital versions of these greek New Testament texts available? Not just online or pdf versions, but complete downloadable full Greek texts in unicode text format: 1. Textus Sinaiticus 2. Textus Vaticanus 3. Textus Receptus (Download ) 4. Westcott and Hort (Download ) 5. Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition And maybe if you know any other good options for comparative studies, I'd appreciate. I will add hyperlinks to the titles, when I have found pleasing site for my purpose with your help.

> Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55, ESV) In order to maintain the belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary, many Christians claim that the use of the Greek word for brother, ἀδελφός, can also be used to mean cousin . From my understanding the more proper term for cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only once in the NT by Paul: > Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), (Colossians 4:10, ESV) The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions "James the brother of Jesus" in his *Antiquities of the Jews*: > Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother (ἀδελφός) of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; My question is twofold; Do we have any writings from Josephus where he uses the term ἀδελφός and it is clear that he uses it to mean cousin or kinsman? Also does Josephus ever use the term ἀνεψιός?

I would like your help in refuting a Christian claim as this has been bugging me for a while now Is the epsilon truly more fitting of the first letter of the word "Allah" (as pronounced in Arabic) when when translated to greek from arabic or would it be an intermediate . Also wouldn't starting with epsilon render the pronunciation of the rest of the word incorrect as in Arabic the second alpha isn't really 'a' it's more of an o and the L's are pronounced differently and the xhi at the end would become silent. I would be grateful if you could respond to this as both Christians and Muslims use this word to refer to God. https://christianforums.net/threads/666-is-allah.102890/

Related: Why does the author of Hebrews render their quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 differently in two places? ### Background The book of Hebrews uses the Hebrew Bible as support for its arguments many times. The author cites Jeremiah 31:33 in two different places and chooses to render the verse curiously differently each time. The first citation occurs in Hebrews 8:10: > ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν. (NA27) > > For this is the covenant that I will make with the **house of Israel** after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. The second citation is in Hebrews 10:16: > Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **πρὸς αὐτοὺς** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς (NA27) > > This is the covenant I will make **with them** after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts and write them on their minds For reference, Jeremiah 31:33 reads > כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת **אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל** אַחֲרֵי > הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם > וְעַל־לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה > יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃ (MT) > > But such is the covenant I will make with the **House of Israel** after these days—declares Hashem: I will put My Torah into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people. ### Definitions The definition of misquoting is to repeat something someone has said in a way that is not accurate . ### Question Which of the two citations is the accurate one? Is this an example of misquoting the Hebrew bible? Why does the author of Hebrews use "**house of Israel**" the first time and "**them**" the second time?

An English version of the relevant part of the Scripture is this: > "16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and > bond, to receive a **mark** in their right hand, or in their foreheads: > > 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or > the name of the beast, or the number of his name." As far I know, it is a relative well cited part of the scripture today. The important question is, what is the word used for **mark** in the original, Greek text, and what did it mean? I think, we all can imagine, what it could mean. For example, if I use a pen to draw a circle on my hand, that will be a mark. But there was no pen at the time, and writing durable marks to human skin was not trivial at the time. I believe, this might be the reason, why is it interpreted as like a tattoo today. Because tattoo was known (and was forbidden since the early Old Testament era). But that is our current interpretation. What is the word used for "mark" in the original, Greek text, and exactly what did it mean, considering the culture and technological customs of the era?

I'm really trying to study the topic of election versus free will. A common theme supporting election is the difference between a general call and an effectual call. But there seems to be no differentiation in the original Greek between one call and another. For example, Matt 22:14 is often cited as a general call. Romans 1:6 is an effectual call. But both verses use the same Greek word for "call" (*κλητοὶ*, *klētoi*). I was hoping that the two theological terms would be based on distinct Greek words, similar to how various meanings of "love" are associated with five different Greek words (*agape*, *eros*, *philia*, etc). My question: who is deciding which verses refer to general vs. effectual? The term was coined by the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647. But other than that, **is there an objective vs. subjective translation/language standard to which we can scrutinize these verses**? Words matter and I **always** go back to Greek/Hebrew when studying. There are literally tons of examples if you just search your concordance or lexicon for "called."

I have been unable to find out whether the new testament part of the Bible in Basic English is translated from the 'Received Text' (*Textus Receptus*) or from the Westcott & Hort/Nestle Aland 'Critical' text. > The Bible In Basic English (also known as the BBE) is a translation of the Bible into Basic English. The BBE was translated by Professor S. H. Hooke using the standard 850 Basic English words. 100 words that were helpful to understand poetry were added along with 50 "Bible" words for a total of 1,000 words. > The New Testament was published in 1941 and the Old Testament was published in 1949.[1] Wikipedia - The Bible in Basic English

Compare the wording of the NWT and the NKJV at Colossians 1:15-17 NKJV says >15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [a]principalities or [b]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. NWT says > 15  He is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn of all creation;16  because by means of him **all other** things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All **other things** have been created through him and for him. 17  Also, he is before **all other** things,and by means of him **all other** things were made to exist, How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the usage of the word “other” in these verses? And what support for bringing this word into the text is there among Greek language aficionados?

Yesterday I was asked if 2 Thessalonians 2:4 suggests that the Antichrist will sit on God’s throne in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Speaking prophetically about “the man of sin, the son of perdition” the King James Version translates 2 Thessalonians 2:4 this way: >Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. The KJV was published (1611) before pre-millennial dispensationalism became popular in the 1830’s as promoted by J.N. Darby and Plymouth Brethren. The New International Version speaks of “the man of lawlessness, the man doomed to destruction” who will set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. The NIV comment says God’s temple “apparently refers to a physical building (Mark 13:14) from which he makes his blasphemous pronouncements.” The English Standard Version also says “the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction... takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” The ESV makes this comment: >The temple of God has been variously interpreted as the church, the heavenly temple, the Jerusalem temple, and for supreme blasphemous arrogance modelled on the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 11:31-35). Whatever the meaning, the context seems to indicate a concrete and observable act of defiance against God. Is there any suggestion from the Greek in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt? Indeed, ***is there any biblical basis for thinking that at some point during the Great Tribulation the Antichrist (man of lawlessness) will enter a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem*** (from which he will proclaim himself to be God and demand worship)?

I recently learned that in the Bible, the word "sin" comes from Hebrew and Greek words that mean "missing the mark". In the Faith section of my local newspaper, [a minister recently said](https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/community/faith-faith-in-christ-transforms-1.24041879) : >The word “sin” is an archery term in the ancient Greek. It means, “you missed”. It’s what a slave boy might have said to his master during target practise. “Sin” means we have missed the mark when it comes to making right moral choices in life. I mildly enjoy word studies, and that one seemed cool, so I dug in a bit to find out more about that. After digging through some of the mountain of blog posts written by Christians and Christian archers on the saying, I learned about the Greek word "hamartia" (means "to miss the mark"). However, although every blogger said something similar to what the pastor in my newspaper said, and there were a lot of cool stories, in all of the blogs I read I couldn't find any link or reference to the phrase ever having *actually been used in archery anciently or modernly*. It was just stated as if it was true. So I took a look at the [Wikipedia article for Hamartia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia) . After reviewing that and a couple other sources, it seems that sin is not actually an archery term. But I can't get through the mountain of blog posts to confirm if I'm on track. There's too much information - I don't want to spend days on only a mildly interesting word study. So I thought I'd ask here if anyone happens to know more or might happen to ask Google a better question. Is there actually a connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery? Or did some excited Christian or Christian archers just connect these dots between the definition of the word and their sport, decide it was true, share it, and it caught on? If this question is more appropriate for another site, I'm happy to move it there. The Sports SE just didn't seem like the right place, [there is no Etymology SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/297523/is-there-an-etymology-stack-exchange) , and beyond that the question's topic seems it might be at home in Christianity SE, History SE, and Linguistics SE fairly equally. I thought I'd ask here first since Christians are the ones that actually use the comment.

I've been looking through the Septuagint and NT Greek manuscripts online and seen these different forms of the name for both Joshua and Jesus. Can someone please explain to me the differences?

*Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of Maimonides*, Volume two, Negative Commandment 63: "Neither shalt thou profane the name of they God: I am the Lord." Lev. XVIII, 21. "And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molek, neither shall you profane את eth-the name of your ELOHIYM: I am YAHUAH." Leviticus 18:21, *eth-Cepher*. את "eth" appears many times in the Scriptures, א (tau) ת (alep) in Hebrew order, is "beginning to end" in English order. The LXX came about circa 300 B.C. Subsequently, the Jews compromised with Greek philosophy, and by 265 B.C. placed a ban on using the Set-Apart Names, *Yehueh* and *Elohim*, and replaced them with *Lord* and *God* (and variations thereof). Those substitutions are found in nearly all English translations of Scripture. "And you shall not swear by My Name to a falsehood; nor shall you pollute the name of your Elohim; I AM Yehueh." Leviticus 19:12, *eth-Cepher*. "You shall not take the name of Yehueh your Elohim in vain; for Yehueh will not leave unpunished the one who takes His name in vain." Exodus 20:7. "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause את eth-my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Ba`al." Yermeyahu 23:26-27, *eth-Cepher*. During the times since the Dead Sea Scroll were found, hundreds, if not thousands more writings have been found that prove the original Hebrew and Aramaic truths have been highjacked by the traditions brought from the Judeo-Greco-Roman-Latin as seen in our Bibles. Why does this practice continue? Why are our leaders, pastors, and teachers not restoring these Set-Apart Names in our churches? Shalom.

Matthew 16:18 > And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Douay-Rheims) Some commentary regarding the "gates of hell" drawn from Councils, Popes, and Saints: - "Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell." (St. Thomas Aquinas) - "we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the *gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)*... (Second Council of Constantinople—Sentence Against the "Three Chapters") - "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." (Pope St. Leo IX) - "So when S. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, — was it not enough to say that S. Peter, as foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical government and administration, could not be crushed and broken by infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell?" (St. Francis de Sales) **Question**: From a Catholic perspective, it seems that the *gates of hell* pertain to erroneous teachings (i.e., heresies). If one goes as far back as possible to the original Greek, might there be a way to connect the original (Greek) words used to denote "the gates of hell" to the notion of heresies? *Remark:* I vaguely recall reading something along these lines a while back but I can't remember where. Perhaps a Catholic theologian may be able to point me in the right direction—or at least in a direction where I can better understand the connection between "gates of hell" and heresies from a Catholic perspective.

Arguing against the teaching that Jesus is a created being, some point out that calling him the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) does not mean the first created. The trinitarian will often say that had the scripture intended to say Jesus is the first created thing the word Protoktistos would have been used rather than prototokos. Then they state that the word Protoktistos is never used in connection with Jesus. My question is: Can you cite examples in the scriptures where the word Protoktistos is used? I would like to compare the places it is used with the places where prototokos is used.