(Denver;18768)
Perhaps so, but as a Christian this logic leaves out the very important detail that I don't think can be overlooked. If you believe in the authority of the Bible, then to some degree or another, the text would be divinely inspired. This is something that all too often logic doesn't account for and arguably cannot. It's a matter of faith, and I'll leave it at that.While not a huge fan of the NIV, I do think it's a respectable translation. I take issue much more with the later translations. Many of the modern ones prefer to summarize over translation & transliteration which can be very detrimental to the original meaning.To know the original meaning, I think you have to go back to the Hebrew/Greek and use the tools that we have available.
Denver,Perhaps I should clarify. I was not saying that the scriptures cannot be inspired. What I was trying to show is that, first of all, the verse used in revelation, was written so far after the Septuagint, and so long before any canonization, that it was obvious to the early church that this verse applied directly to the work itself. It is also worthy to note that John frequently quotes the Septuagint, so it could not refer to the Septuagint, even if it did, somehow, refer to all of the old testament scriptures exclusively, and not including itself.So, it was speaking directly about itself, as a warning to transcribers to be absolutely careful not to change anything at all, as often times transcribers would change a thing or two, either on purpose or not. Revelation is so packed with meaning, however, that a transcribers error could be detrimental to the reader's chance at understanding what John was saying.In any case, the verse in John, could not refer to the Septuagint, as the Septuagint was used freely by John, and the verse in John didn't refer to the Tenack, and the Septuagint was hundreds of years before that time, and finally the Septuagint did not "take out" anything at all. Our study of the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm this. {The Septuagint is Old Testament only, for those who may not be aware}.The more modern translations having many things which are now missing, is simply more true to the original text. Sure, I can understand that it is hard to part with some favorite verses, but if we are to be honest and study the writings of the Bible, let us study them in their original form.In the end, though, I do agree that going back to Hebrew and Greek is a key. It is at once not the only key, and quite indispensable.