Posted on 12/08/2011 7:08:42 PM PST by rzman21
The rabbis had a process that selected the best texts, and had them copied, and they had processes that would detect errors, so erroneous texts could be detected.
And so the dead sea scrolls confirm that the rabbis copies were pretty good.
That thing in your hands we call the “Holy Bible”. Either you believe He made some effort to put it there or He didn’t. You will never “find proof” so quit looking. He doesn’t OWE us proof. Read Job. We couldn’t understand it if He tried. Merry Christmas.
I think the most fascinating aspect of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they substantiate the text of the Septuagint where it diverges from the Massoretic Text.
A key example of how the Septuagint is linked to the New Testament is the issue of the virgin birth because the Septuagint translates Isaiah’s prophecy as parthenos or “virgin” rather than young woman as in the Massoretic text.
That was a key reason the Palestinian Jews banned it and changed the wording of their editions of the Old Testament.
I’m not looking for proof.
Protestants cling to the Massoretic texts because they hate anything that smacks of “Romanism.” That seems to be then entire Modus Operendi for their religion.
Let’s just stick with the Septuagint.
Thanks. Slava Isusu Christu!
You are making an idol of manuscripts.
I meant a “generic” you. Not you personally. Sorry, poor communication on my part. I should have written “if ONE is looking for proof...”
You signed up on FR just to post this?? Twice??
Your argument is compelling.
If the Christian world between A.D. 30 and A.D. 400 was relying first and foremost on the LXX, what right have we to toss that overboard just because it doesn’t fit our preconceived notion of what the Bible *should* look like? The Masoretic text is certainly valuable and useful. But did the earliest Christians make use of it? And if not, why not? Maybe they knew something we don’t.
I also disagree with the author’s anti-inerrantist position, but I think he has exposed a big weakness in trying to base Christianity from a *book* rather than a living community of Apostolic faith. The *book* was the product of the community, not the other way around.
Some Protestants turn the Biblical manuscripts into an idol the way the Muslims do with the Quran.
Well I think it's the other way around...Your guys left some important stuff out...
So you trust a bunch of Jews who tampered with the scriptures AFTER the split between Judaism and Christianity.
I thought you didn’t think things should be added to the Bible.
Don’t make an idol out of a manuscript drawn up by the Pharisees almost 1,000 years after Christ.
Just to be clear, the Jewish attitude is that Christians have just made up endless stuff about the ‘Septuagint’.
The original Septuagint was of the Five Books of Moses only, translated by 70 elders. Other Biblical scrolls were translated into Greek unofficially.
Christians regard any ancient translation into Greek of any Biblical scrolls as ‘Septuagint’.
Even the idea of ‘canon’ is different between Christians and Jews. The Jewish canon is a hierarchy, with the Five Books of Moses carrying most authority, followed by the Prophets and then ‘The Writings’. But lesser authority is then assigned to the Mishnah and other later works.
By contrast, Christians treat later writings as more authoritative even if they claim they do not. And a book like Daniel, highly regarded by Christians for its prophecy, is merely part of ‘The Writings’ to Jews.
The original Septuagint was of the Five Books of Moses only, translated by 70 elders.
That falls under the heading of mythology...
Other Biblical scrolls were translated into Greek unofficially.
That could be but no evidence exists that this took place before the time of Jesus...
And Jesus would never have quoted those un-official books...
There exists only a few scraps of Greek scripture from the book of Deuteronomy...
The only group of folks with the authority to handle the scriptures were the Levites...
By contrast, Christians treat later writings as more authoritative even if they claim they do not. And a book like Daniel, highly regarded by Christians for its prophecy, is merely part of ‘The Writings’ to Jews.
I don't know bout that...I consider all the OT books to equally authorative...
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Anything outside of those is not OT scripture...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.