Posted on 12/10/2010 9:41:02 AM PST by topcat54
Because that’s soooo what I’m doing...
And again I say lol...
The Dispensationalist seeks umbrage from the unbelieving Jew... how ironic...
It’s called “avoidance”. It’s not “having a hard time”; it’s a deliberate refusal to engage you on the “hard questions” so it’s just easier to hide behind “I believe it has come time agree that we will not agree” and “one day, I believe soon, we will know”... when all else fails, appeal to emotion and the “mystery” argument.
Future yes, but not about Jesus. You have to read the links I provide. Here is another:
Are they being serious?
The Jewish Rabbi’s of the septuagint only translated the Torah. The 5 books of Moses. There rest of the Tanakh, or “OT” was done by Christian translators.
>> Future yes, but not about Jesus. You have to read the links I provide. Here is another:<<
Hey thanks! That helped me a lot. I have always had a struggle with exactly who was being talked about regarding who they were mourning for. I knew it had to be a future event but the normal Christian reference to Jesus was somewhat troubling. That link cleared it up pretty well for me. I appreciate your input.
Sure thing FRiend
See post 164
That's a fairy tale. The extant Hebrew Scriptures were translated by Jewish rabbis into Greek over a period of two centuries beginning in the 3rd century BC. It was completed before Christ (and, hence, before there were any Christians).
Are you saying you prefer the rabbinic Jewish explanation over and against the inspired NT interpretation given to us by the apostle John?
Unbelievable.
Not a fairy tale. Documented fact.
From Rabbi Singer:
...the Septuagint in our hands today is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah, which you asserted that Matthew quoted from. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.
Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) had an enormous impact on creating and shaping the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.
The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.2 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, "The word 'Septuagint,' (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books."3
In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."4 This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree.
Footnotes:Josephus, preface to Antiquities of the Jews, section 3. For Josephus' detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4. 2 St. Jerome, preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. Pg. 487. Hendrickson. 3The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Excerpt from "Septuagint," New York: Vol. 5, pg. 1093. 4 F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.150.
Septuagint Online, Kalvesmaki:
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy's project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.
So....even if the whole of Tanakh was completed in LXX before Jesus, the Torah portion is the only reliable part. Nobody knows who or when the rest was done by. We do know that the authors of the LXX did not accurately translate the prophets into Hebrew. And it was further tampered with over time.
>> Are you saying you prefer the rabbinic Jewish explanation over and against the inspired NT interpretation given to us by the apostle John?<<
Rather then use the term “rabbinic Jewish” why don’t you use the term “those who understand the Hebrew language better then we do”? I have found several instances where a clearer understanding of individual passages was gained from looking at word usage from a Hebrew perspective. While most of the translation was very accurate there are a few instances, while not changing the overall meaning, there have been clearer understanding and context given when word usage was understood.
One thing I may not have explained to you is that I originally believed much the same as you do. It was back in the early 70’s that I began to have questions and started to earnestly study. It has been a gratifying and enlightening journey.
I understand that you have your view but I would suggest that you spend some time researching the dispensational side. The internet makes it very easy these days. You may already have done what you believe is an adequate study and if that is the case I respect your right to have your view. I just believe that with careful, prayerful study asking God to give you His truth it will at least give you a better understanding of why we believe as we do. Don’t take someone else’s interpretation without questioning it as I know you will. Check their Biblical reference compared to the views of others then ask God to help you understand.
Keep in mind that John did not write in English. It had to be translated. I always use the example of the word “love”. In English we can love our children, love our wife, make love to our wife, love a good meal, or love the weather. Which type of love did Jesus ask Peter that he had for Him? In the original there is Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge. All have simply been translated “love” in our English Bibles. You can see that a different meaning comes out when the original understanding of the word is used. When Jesus was asking Peter if he loved Him he used different words each time.
• Agápe means "love" (brotherly love) in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo, which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the "love chapter", 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.
• Éros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.
• Philia means friendship in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
• Storge means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.
Did I mention English? What does that have to do with John’s plain identification of the fulfillment of Zech. 12 with Jesus' crucifixion in John 19? And how does a commentary on the various Greek words for “love” get us any closer to a proper understanding?
You made a rather provocative statement which seemed to favor the rabbinic retranslation/interpretation of Zech 12 over and against the inspired word of God given through the apostle John. I don’t see these comments as addressing that issue.
Because I do not accept that premise. I see it as fundamentally flawed for several reasons.
1) There have been many worthy Hebrew scholars through the ages who happened to be Christians. When it comes to the technical issues of translating Hebrew into other languages, they can stand with the best of them.
2) The post-resurrection rabbis have a vested interest in downplaying the prophetic Scriptures as pointing conclusively to Jesus Christ. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has read their writings.
3) The apostle John provided the infallible/inspired interpretation of Zech 12 when he applied it to Christ on the cross. This is true of all the NT writers. The constant reframe of “for these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled” is not unique to John. Proving Christ was who He claimed to be from the OT was the task of the NT writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The post-resurrection rabbis’ interpretation was not at the same level, and does not carry this divine authority. Physical genetics does not trump spiritual genetics. God the Father provides His people with the means to understand His word by imparting the Spirit. The rabbis who deny Messiah has come in the flesh do not share in that blessing.
One thing I may not have explained to you is that I originally believed much the same as you do. … I understand that you have your view but I would suggest that you spend some time researching the dispensational side.
And I used to be a die-hard dispensationalist. I have studied it extensively and I know its many weaknesses. It starts with a fundamentally unbiblical premise -- the radical distinction between Israel and the Church -- and then deteriorates from there. E.g., The rapture doctrine was invented to support the basic theory.
Your good rabbis are merely parroting Philo’s legend. There’s no history to support the legend.
You do see how you appear to be forcing the Scripture into your futurist theory by preferring post-resurrection Jewish reinterpretation over and against God’s apostles?
The thing I find most irrational about dispensationalists is that while they claim to take OT prophecies literally and criticize those who spiritualize OT prophecies-- clearly Jesus and the Apostles spiritualized OT prophecies and they accept those interpretations as legitimate but cast aspersions on Christians who follow Jesus and the Apostles method of interpretation.
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.