The Neverending Story

Free Republic | 3/24/01 | The NES Crew

[malakhi]

You assume a "translation error" and not, in fact, an accurate rendering of the then-Hebrew text which was later corrupted.

See my #758. You both lost track of which verse was being discussed.

[SoothingDave]

See my #758. You both lost track of which verse was being discussed.

No, you're assuming "almah" is the word which was translated "parthenos." Because that's what your present-day manuscripts say.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be produced either yet you trust your traditions

We all trust our respective traditions. No one has "evidence" for everything they hold as true in faith.

SD

[malakhi]

No, you're assuming "almah" is the word which was translated "parthenos." Because that's what your present-day manuscripts say.

Good grief. Are you seriously trying to assert that the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 was tampered with? Have you any evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a claim?

You'd have me believe that "THE (cough, cough) Septuagint" must be acknowledged as a superior version of the Jewish scriptures, even though it is a translation, because the Jews went through the Hebrew version after the fact and doctored it to remove "prophecies" about Jesus? This is absurd on so many levels that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

This is absurd on so many levels

It will be 4 years come this March.

BigMack

[malakhi]

And then what? We start on the next level of absurdity? ;o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You'd have me believe that "THE (cough, cough) Septuagint" must be acknowledged as a superior version of the Jewish scriptures, even though it is a translation, because the Jews went through the Hebrew version after the fact and doctored it to remove "prophecies" about Jesus? This is absurd on so many levels that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

You're surprised. Didn't NT writers say that the Jews' father is the devil? lol.

[malakhi]

I mean, I know we're supposed to be perfidious and all, but still...

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I mean, I know we're supposed to be perfidious and all, but still...

Well, to be fair Pope John XXIII removed that word. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I mean, I know we're supposed to be perfidious and all, but still...

Well, to be fair Pope John XXIII removed that word. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I mean, I know we're supposed to be perfidious and all, but still...

Well, to be fair Pope John XXIII removed that word. :-)

[malakhi]

Three times he removed it? ;o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

What the hell happened? I've been posting double and triple all day long.

[malakhi]

I thought you might be taking an early run at post #1000. ;o)

[SoothingDave]

Good grief. Are you seriously trying to assert that the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 was tampered with? Have you any evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a claim?

We all trust our respective traditions. I am neither making this claim nor do I offer any evidence of such. But it is not "absurd," especially in the light of the lion/pierce controversy to wonder.

It is only "absurd" if you take it as a given that Jews are always above reproach. I don't think you can say that about any group.

SD

[malakhi]

It is only "absurd" if you take it as a given that Jews are always above reproach.

It is absurd for a variety of reasons, having little to do with Jews being above reproach. The most obvious being, if this were some plot to obscure the "messianic" meaning of the passage, then it failed rather spectacularly.

Bottom line is, the early church cared very little what the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures had to say. They were writing in Greek, not Hebrew.

[malakhi]

If Psalm 22:17 (or verse 16, depending on the version) is so important, then why isn't it cited even once by any of the writers of the Christian scriptures?

[SoothingDave]

The most obvious being, if this were some plot to obscure the "messianic" meaning of the passage, then it failed rather spectacularly.

And yet to this day, here we have people making hay on the issue and accusing the early Church (and the modern Church) of plots to mislead.

Bottom line is, the early church cared very little what the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures had to say. They were writing in Greek, not Hebrew.

True. But those who read Hebrew would know enough to avoid this particular "Jesus-proving" text. So it has a function.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If Psalm 22:17 (or verse 16, depending on the version) is so important, then why isn't it cited even once by any of the writers of the Christian scriptures?

I don't think it was ever claimed to be "so important." That's kind of what makes the entire argument futile. I can totally cede that almah is the correct word, and that it does not have a meaning necessarily of "virgin" and it still doesn't change the truth of Jesus. It is a tempest in a teapot.

SD

[malakhi]

And yet to this day, here we have people making hay on the issue

The only "hay" being made on this issue is the pointing out of an inaccuracy in Christian translations of the Hebrew text, specifically a translation which favors a Christian interpretation.