Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
I sometimes think that the insistance on absolute hyper predestination in all respects etc.
NEGATES GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY
rather than 'bolsters' it.
It ASSUMES that God cannot quite beyond our finiteness created a . . .
space . . . say . . .
wherein the authentic opportunity for true FREE WILL would exist for say mankind
WITHOUT diminishing God's all-knowingness at all.
Parents have the power to be very aware of every detail of planning of the kids for the parent's surprise birthday party. But loving parents will typically insure that they are thoroughly ignorant of such plans. Not because they lack such 'limited omnicience' but because they choose to lay some of it aside for a limited time in a limited way.
I think it's an imperfect analogy given my finiteness. But I think this pokes in the direction of what MAY be going on with a truly robust degree and nature of a truly authentic measure of free will allowing for a truly robust and authentic FREEDOM TO LOVE, or not.
The knowledge of it I'm speaking of, looking back, in hindsight. You would say, 'he wasn't really saved then', we might say, he stepped off the path then. In a manner of looking at it, it's just a different way of framing the time. I realize you're making distinct theological differences; I'm looking at it as comparative religion.
Yes, this is pretty much how I see it as well. And, we each base our views on the totality of our respective authorities. I'm not sure if I'm following you on the reference to time frame, though. We make it a point to never declare that we can know about the salvation of anyone else. So, if you tell me you are saved, I am fine with believing you and treating you as if it was a certainty. I am fine in continuing with this until you give me good reason to change my mind. For example, if today you tell me you renounce God and go on to live a sinful life, and if you continue to do that for the next 40 years until your death, then I might change my mind. I might say "then you were never saved". The ONLY thing that really means concerning time is that my initial "guess" was wrong. Nothing changed in you in terms of time. Fortunately, of course, this example is a total fantasy. :)
And interesting thing, to me, is that all religions I'm fairly familiar with have an internal argument about "gradual vs. sudden": whether salvation (enlightenment, etc..) occurs at once or over time, some call it an educational enlightenment, though I don't like the term.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Could you give an example?
In this context, lemme try it this way. Was Adam a Jew? No, because Abraham was the first Jew. YET, the whole foundation of Orthodox theosis is trying to get back to the original state of Adam, right? Well, since Adam was neither Jew nor Gentile, it should be open to all. I'm not basing this on anything, but I thought it was worth a shot. :)
FK: "I would think that Jesus had no problem in associating with the Gentile riffraff."
Do we have references to that, other than an occasional Canaan woman?
Yes. One example, again, being the centurion. Whether Jesus was preaching Judaism (as you said earlier) to him or not, He DID associate with him. Jesus was famous for taking supper and lodging with known sinners. They were the ones who needed Him most. If the plan all along was going to be to officially bring the Gentiles in, it would have been very odd to me if Jesus DIDN'T give us a preview of this. I believe He did. And even besides Matt. 28 we have other evidence of Jesus foretelling the inclusion of the Gentiles:
Matt 24:14 : And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
John 10:16 : I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
---------------
FK: "In fact, if all He did was restate, then there would have been no movement to kill Him."
He was not killed because He came to restate but because He was rumored to have claimed that was the Son of God. That was a capital offense in Israel.
Yes, that is precisely my point. By making His claim He was doing a lot more than restating IN THEIR EYES. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "Judaism". There was the Judaism of the OT righteous, and then there was the Judaism of the masses of Jews who demanded His death. Obviously, very different.
FK: "Do you believe what the Bible says happened on the road to Damascus?"
I don't know what happened. In 1 Cor 9:1 +Paul says "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" but in Acts 9:8 it says "And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Acts 9:8 happens AFTER Paul's encounter with Christ, when he was blinded. It says earlier:
Acts 9:3 : 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: ... KJV
Now, this "could" be the reference in 1 Cor. 9:1 to "seeing" Jesus Christ. Or, more likely, IMO, Paul really did see Jesus in this sense:
1 Cor 15:5-8 : ... 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Catholics do not worship Mary as a goddess. That is an old Protestant myth. Protestantism has never dealt well or sufficiently with Mary. Karl Barth, in his "Church Dogmatics," vol. 2, when discussing the Miracle of Christmas, comes closest to a good Reformed treatment of the entire issue. Barth remains one of few protestant theologians that the Church takes seriously, and I continue to read him as a Catholic.
I believe it is fair to assume, however, that the Mother of Christ might just have a special place in the heart of God and in our own prayer life. If you understand the terrible sovreignty and majesty of God the Father and the Risen Christ (who returns as the Judge, by the way), Mary eases our way to the Gentle Savior and Lamb of God. It is an important devotional function for many and it enriches our lives in worship.
Sometimes Calvinism/Lutheranism, with all their proper emphasis on doctrine and theology, are a bit stark, leaving us very much alone before an Almighty and Sovreign God. Christology is subsumed by Doctrine of God, and the love of God is submerged in His sovreignty. The Church has always managed to balance God's love and sovreignty, which is one of its many strengths. The Catholic understanding of Mary is a wonderful "softening" of what can be, to many who are struggling with sin, death, and judgement, a terrible and unapproachable Christ in Majesty.
There are two major thrusts in all theology with respect to Doctrine of God: 1.) God's love is shown in sovreignty, or 2.) God's sovreignty is shown in love. The former is Calvin, the latter is Luther...who, interestingly enough, always saw himself as just a Catholic who had a radical disagreement with the Church. His theology still bears the marks of Catholicism and the Lutheran Mass is still close to the Catholic one. My own eschatological hope is to see all Christian churches re-united under Rome. At base, we aren't that different.
So you think that Isaiah was written in 100 BCE?
Regards
Good points. It is interesting to note that the Samaritans also had their own "canon", which, not surprisingly, only consisted of the Torah. Recent studies (last 20 years) have found that most Jews actually were reading the Septuagint, even in Palestine, and that the previously held Palestine/Alexandrian canon distinction was pretty much artificial.
Regards
There is nothing that has been discovered that has given the Septuagint any creditability over the Hebrew MS text.
Origen assumed the accuracy of the Hebrew text in his first column of the Hexapla. He assumed it because it was true in his opinion. No one knew those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts like Origen in his day.
Why would someone with his knowledge of manuscripts undertake a work like the Hexapla, a massive scholarly undertaking for which there was no equal, and base it on a faulty assumption. He wouldn't and he didn't.
Clearly Origen examined all the available manuscripts of his day and saw that the Hebrew text was fixed and unchanging and put that text in column one.
The Greek texts of the OT of his day, however, varied widely. If there was a standard Septuagint version of his day, it would have been in one of those columns --- but there was no standard Greek OT, only multiple versions some more accurate in areas than others.
He needed five columns for the Greek texts and could have used three or four more columns as well for the Greek --- but he needed only one column for the Hebrew because there was only one Hebrew text and he believed that he had it and put it there in column one and then used all the others, especially Theodotian's Greek text in column six to create his LXX in column five.
Origen's Hexapla is testimony to the accuracy of the Hebrew text in his day. Jerome recognized it as well. It was just as that Jew Paul said in that Greek text of the letter to the Romans: unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God and they were faithful to transmit them accurately, even books like Isaiah and Daniel wherein the prophecies of the Messiah clearly point to Jesus as their fulfillment.
This is no different than the Holy Trinity, a concept which is incomprehensible to human reason, yet firmly established as the foundation of Christian monotheism.
Free will establishes us as moral and rational beings, responsible for our own actions and decisions, not driven by necessity. It establishes sin as our rejection of God and ultimately rejection of God's will. Thus, sin is our 'creation,' not God's. Free will explains our fall from grace and points to god's love in our redemption.
Human restoration to grace can only be accomplished by the same mechanism by which man fell from grace: either he fell by free disobedience or he was predestined by cruel God to fall. Likewise, either we are passively "restored" by capricious God, or we are given a chance to come to Him in free obedience. Thus, just as the fall was born out of freedom, our coming to God must be free and not compelled.
No offense, FK, but that sounds very naïve to me.
None taken. But why?
Well, then the Bible is not telling us the truth; then the eternal lake of fire was not created for the devil and his angels, but for some 'goats' in addition to that.
Hell was created to FIRST house satan and his demons. God, in His omniscience, knew that men would later inhabit it. Does scripture contradict this?
It is clear from another part of the NT that Christ considered some who are among us not to have been created by the Father, but by the devil. (cf John 8:44)
John 8:44 is obviously speaking of spiritual father, not in the sense of creation. See the beginning of John:
John 1:3 : Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
---------------
When Kolo said that we worship a different God, he pretty much spoke my mind.
Well, it is a shame to hear that.
The messiah of Judaism is not a savior of man's souls.
This again depends on what one considers "Judaism". I believe that the OT righteous would have had it right, had they been around during the time of Jesus.
I really do not believe that the Apostles thought of Him as God (all Gospel verse notwithstanding) before the Resurrection, and that even after that +Thomas still had to put his fingers in His wounds in order to believe.
I would agree that not all of the Apostles were really with the program until after the resurrection. John was probably the earliest to be very close. But this was simply God's timing. It all comes from God anyway.
Matt 16:17 : 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
---------------
Okay, then tell me if the Protestants do not believe that Christ paid for all our sins, past, present and future. Are we not just a pile of dung covered with a white sheet (Luther's words)? There is no cleansing required; just put on some clean clothes on our dirty bodies! Shove that dirt under the rug.
Yes, we believe that Christ paid for all our sins, past, present and future. He is very powerful like that. You are taking Luther's words out of context for your purpose. He was speaking of during physical life. After physical life, God will convert His elect to perfect righteousness in all glory. There is cleansing required and Luther knew it. From Luther's sermons:
34. Think of the honor and the glory Christ’s righteousness brings even to our bodies! How can this poor, sinful, miserable, filthy, polluted body become like unto that of the Son of God, the Lord of Glory? What are you—your powers and abilities, or those of all men, to effect this glorious thing? But Paul says human righteousness, merit, glory and power have nothing to do with it. They are mere filth and pollution, and condemned as well. Another force intervenes, the power of Christ the Lord, who is able to bring all things into subjection to himself. Now, if he has power to subject all things unto himself at will, he is also able to glorify the pollution and filth of this wretched body, even when it has become worms and dust. In his hands it is as clay in the hands of the potter, and from the polluted lump of clay he can make a vessel that shall be a beautiful, new, pure, glorious body, surpassing the sun in its brilliance and beauty.
35. Through baptism Christ has taken us into his hands, actually that he may exchange our sinful, condemned, perishable, physical lives for the new, imperishable righteousness and life he prepares for body and soul. Such is the power and the agency exalting us to marvelous glory—something no earthly righteousness of the Law could accomplish. The righteousness of the Law leaves our bodies to shame and destruction; it reaches not beyond physical existence. But the righteousness of Christ inspires with power, making evident that we worship not the body but the true and living God, who does not leave us to shame and destruction, but delivers from sin, death and condemnation, and exalts this perishable body to eternal honor and glory.
---------------
Do Protestants not believe that those who are saved are saved because God 'saved' them before they were even created? That nothing can change that? That everything they do is what God wills? Our works are not salvific; but then they are not damning either, correct? No matter what we do, we cannot be 'snatched,' correct?
Reformers believe that God has elected those of His choosing before He created them. This can be seen as a "functional" salvation from the beginning, AND we also use the word "salvation" to refer to a singular event within time when the believer comes to accept Christ. Election is a "functional" salvation because as you say "nothing can change that".
Everything we do is part of God's plan, but God does not "will" everything we do in terms of sin. He does not "inject" actors with sin for the purpose of causing it. He simply leaves the actors alone, knowing the resulting sin will accomplish His purpose.
Our works are not salvific. Good works are a result of salvation, in every case. "Works", depending on the definition, can be, however, damning. The wages of sin is death.
Yes, no matter what we WILL do, we will not be snatched. I have to add the word "will" to your statement because that is the protection God promises us. On our own, we could theoretically lose our salvation. But, God promises that He will never leave us alone. For that reason, neither will the elect leap out of God's hand. God won't turn His back on us.
Do the Protestants not believe that all your future sins are already 'covered?' So, why worry; be happy, right? Cozy, easy.
Kosta, this has been answered a hundred times by multiple posters. At least tell us why you ignore the answer, instead of just disagreeing with it. God created us (in part) and commands us to do works. It's all over the Bible. We are to obey. Paul says "By no means" should we rest on our laurels. We Reformed Christians, with our changed hearts, WANT to do these things. We're not looking to get saved by doing them, we're looking to love, please, and glorify God by doing them. Which is the better motive? :) It's the God-given changed heart that makes this happen, it's not from us.
FK: "Was this God adjusting on the fly? :) God made a New Covenant because it was time for the Incarnation, planned from the beginning, and Christ was to bring it."
Actually, yes! Just the way He 'repented' in the Old Testament for having made man and decided to drown everything alive — "on the fly." Otherwise we have to assume He created man wicked in order to drown Him.
Actually, NO! :) You are saying that God changed His mind, implying fault in His original thinking. We say that God can and does change COURSE, but the new course was always part of the original perfect plan. That's a big difference. ........ Your last statement draws a false conclusion. You are equating ending with purpose. Among those who remain(ed) wicked, God created them to use for His own purposes in the furtherance of His plan. Some of those crucified Christ, some became Democrat Presidents, and some drowned, etc.
Your theory doesn't match the scripture, FK. In Hebrews, the scribe specifically states that the Old Covenant was made 'imperfect' by the unbelieving Jews (cf Heb 8:9), and that God decided to start from scratch, erasing the iniquities of the Jews and starting with a clean slate, once again (cf Heb 8:12).
God did not decide to start from scratch in the sense that He "realized" He had made a mistake. The Old Covenant was exactly what God wanted for the people it was intended for, pre-Christ Jews. That's what was good for them. With the arrival of Christ, a New Covenant became what was right and proper for Christians. God never changed His mind. Everything went according to the original plan.
There is no leap to make. Paul clearly said that Christ was "speaking" through him. That's what I have been saying. For example:
Gal 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
In fact, Christ spoke through all of the writers.
But we rely on the interpretation, FK, not on the scripture itself! The scripture is not clear and definitive enough to tell us straight and narrow what the meaning is. To the contrary!
This is a huge difference between us. Since we use other scripture to interpret, our reliance really IS on the scripture itself. I would say that in order to arrive at Apostolic interpretation, the scripture is no where near adequate itself as a guide. Therefore, your reliance would be on the Fathers and the consensus patrum, and not the scriptures. That makes sense.
That's why my love for Tolstoy's Three Little Hermits and Christ's Two Commandments from the OT are my guiding formula to faith: glorify God and leave the rest to Him.
That sounds nice, but NO ONE can glorify God all the time with bad theology! :)
Again, we use religion as a weapon and not as a means to simply acknowledge God's glory and be at peace. No, we must 'interpret' and be 'right.'
I know you meant "we" in the corporate sense of "all of us Christians", but I have to chuckle because you just got through telling me that you and I worship different Gods. :)
The key is not interpretation, FK, but worship. The less we concentrate on interpreting the scripture 'just right,' and more on worship, the less sinful our lives will be.
For the benefit of lurkers, this is completely out of context. I was comparing interpretation to translation, nothing else. In a totally separate conversation, of course worship is the "key". Correct theology and doctrine are very very important, but worship is why we go to church.
You are not thinking like a Jew. I suggest you research Jewish sources on what is a Jew. Abraham was the first among many "chosen ones" who established a "chosen nation" (by procreation). Until then, the God's "chosen" people were individuals who could not transmit their election to their offspring, but they were equally "chosen," and are therefore "Israel" in that sense.
Thus, being "Israel" is not necessarily genetic, cultural or racial. All the people who are 'the chosen' and graced by God are considered Israel.
When God gave Moses the Law, He established how one becomes part of Israel: either you are born of a Jewish mother or your a convert to Judaism. There is no 'grafting,' there is no different application, or abrogation of the Law or circumcision. Christ never spoke of 'grafting' anyone as that would be contrary to the Law, nor did he speak of the possibility of dispensing with dietary laws or circumcision being one in the heart and not external.
Just as the Bible does not use the word "predestination" before +Paul, the term 'the elect' refers to the chosen people by God in the Creation. It was understood to include such people as Adam and Noah, and all those born of Abraham.
Whether Jesus was preaching Judaism (as you said earlier) to him or not, He DID associate with him. Jesus was famous for taking supper and lodging with known sinners Jews could associate with Gentiles in their daily activities, by necessity. Jews were prohibited from fraternizing with them. There is a big difference.
Eating with sinners means nothing. The Jews were sinners too. The point is that Christ never, ever, preached or taught anything close to what +Paul did with regards to 'the elect,' or circumcision or dietary laws or even the Law.
Matt 24:14 : And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come
That is, again, in perfect harmony with the Judaic idea of the meshiyah (messiah): that the whole world will know the God of Abraham. That doesn't mean the whole world will be Jewish. The Judaic messiah is a mortal ma, a king of Israel [who like all Jewish kings] is anointed by God) who will defeat the enemies of Israel (Jews), and establish peace on earth (the world to come), where everyone will know about the God of Abraham and Jacob the way everyone knew of Caesar.
Nothing mystical about it. Even the Apostles, in the very beginning of the Acts, ask Christ if He is going to "establish the Kingdom of Israel" at that point. Their mindset was still very much Jewish.
John 10:16 : I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd
There were other Semitic tribes, descendants of Abraham,, who were not following Christ. In fact, most if not practically all of Israel didn't! Judaic messiah is supposed to reunite all the tribes of Israel before he defeats his enemies.
Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "Judaism". There was the Judaism of the OT righteous, and then there was the Judaism of the masses of Jews who demanded His death. Obviously, very different.
Judaism is whatever different 'denominations' or sects make it to be. What people believe or how they observe it is not 'official.' It's like saying there is the Christianity of the saints and of the non-saints.
1 Cor 15:5-8 :
And in Galatians he says that "God [sic] revealed Christ in (not to) him." As usual, once you start dissecting what +Paul says, it becomes obvious that he is going back and forth as the situation demanded.
Thanks for your comments.
You're absolutely correct, language is imprecise as well as text. A very young Christian reading the geneology in Matthew might be confused with the one listed in Luke which is different based upon perspective.
In the case of Samuel, Saul had two daughters Merab and Michal (1 Sam 14:49). The Hebrew spelling between the two names is very slight, one single tick mark. It is likely there could have been a translation error give the conditions of the documents being transcribed-not due to an error in the original text. However, it is to be equally noted that when one compares one part of scripture with the other, (1 Sam 14:49, 2 Sam 6:23, and 2 Sam 21:8), the full meaning of the scripture becomes clear; Merab had the five children, Michal had none. God scripture provides clarity when comparing one scripture against another and the accurate information is available if one is willing to hear it. This was always the view of Protestants. We don't attack the word of God.
Seniority is not part of the formula, FK. It's something a lawyer would throw in to obfuscate the issue faced with a lack of any real argument. :)
LOL! I only threw in "senior" to make sure I was relaying information I was confident about. In my church we have a few paid ministerial positions, e.g. Minister of Music, Minister of Education, and Minister to Students. To date, none of these positions has ever been held by a woman. A few years ago, I was in charge of the committee to update the Bylaws to reflect the current views of church members and the subject came up as to whether women would even be eligible for these positions. We wound up voting "no", but there was some debate about it. That's my church, and I simply don't know about other SBC churches.
But it's important to understand where the 'tide comes from' so to say. Certainly, the non-compliance in Apostolic churches did not come from within those churches, but from western influence, based on Protestant individualism, pride, hatred for authority, etc. all the things we cherish in secular life and mistakenly bring into our spiritual life.
What? You're blaming us for people in your churches not following the "rules"? You have spent a lot of time telling me how your beliefs and practices are relatively unchanged since the beginning, and yet "modern" Protestants are somehow this big new corrupting influence on you? You all survived the iron fist of communism, along with other great oppression, and yet harmless little Protestants cause you to stumble now? That's not reasonable.
It is even more hypocritical that it should come from the Protestant side since the Protestants 'live by the Bible.'
And you live by Tradition, and fail that from time to time. We never claimed to be perfect, we do claim to define our authority and standards. We don't claim to be "better" than anyone else.
No --- you are asking the wrong question. That manuscript of Isaiah from the DSS is dated to 100 BC, in other words, it was copied by scribes circa 100 BC not originally written then.
BTW Where is the Septuagintal equivalent to this from the DSS? If the Septuagint was so magically superior and such a miraculous translation, how come this copy from 100 BC is not in the Greek language?
You are making an unwarranted jump to conclusion. IF the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was so pristine and perfect in the eyes of the known Jewish world, tell me, why did the Apostle quote from the SEPTUAGINT so often, rather than the grand old Hebrew Scriptures???
And the only reason why Jerome liked the Hebrew was because he had this thing in his mind that something had to be written in Hebrew to be the Word of God. Thus, he changed his mind about several of the Deuterocanonicals when Hebrew versions of 1 Maccabees and Sirach were found.
Regards
tired protestant canard ping
2 BC COPIES of the Septuagint found in Qumran. Not fragments COPIES.
Thanks for as direct an answer as possible.
Logically what your saying makes sense. If the Masoretic text added the vowels and translated this Hebrew text then the Old Testament of the King James version should be very accurate.
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.