Posted on 12/10/2010 9:41:02 AM PST by topcat54
>> retranslation/interpretation of Zech 12 over and against the inspired word of God<<
The “inspired word of God” was first written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. So it is the understanding of those languages that supercedes our understanding of the English language. When the word Agape was written it meant one thing but when the word Eros or Philia was used it meant something different but all three have been interpreted Love in the English which would give a much different meaning of the text when written in English. To use “inspired” to the English may not be accurate given the original “inspired” text was written in a different language. If the specific meaning of the original word was not conveyed the “inspired” part may have been lost.
>> the radical distinction between Israel and the Church<<
I don’t know why you call it “radical” but there certainly is a distinction made in Scriptures between Israel and the Church. Christians have been grafted in as far as the promise of Salvation and family are concerned but the promises made to the Jewish people were eternal. Even in the book of Revelation Israel is separate. http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Israel_in_Revelation.htm
Many Christians have been duped into the belief that anything Jewish automatically translate into faithfulness. After all, the reasoning goes, the Bible was written primarily by Jewish people so who better to understand what’s there than other Jews? They fail to grasp the harsh reality that much of the writings and practices of the Jews comes after the time of Christ, and were written consciously as an apologetic against Christ and Christianity. Is it surprising, then, to find Jewish teachers who would reinterpret the OT prophets in such a way as to deny how the NT writers understood those prophets wrt Jesus Christ, His person and work?
They also fail to discern the fact that these post-resurrection Jewish authors were not divinely inspired. In fact, some folks might go so far as to suggest that they were satanically inspired, since one must either be in the kingdom of light or the kingdom of darkness. There is no middle ground. E.g., Is a Jewish writer who denies Christ a better source of truth than a Muslim writer who denies Christ?
The Bible is all about Jesus Christ. The Law and the Prophets testify of Him. The divinely-inspired NT writers were able to connect the dots. What some “Christian” theologies have attempted to do is run a dividing wedge through the Bible and say that some texts are not really about Christ and the Christian faith, but about Israel, the earthly people of God. They do this by adopting a so-called “literal” interpretation of the Bible, but, in fact, all they are doing is dismissing the NT approach to interpreting the Old, and adopting the same approach that unbelieving Jews have utilized to say that this or that passage is not about Jesus.
Of course there is. When I use the term “radical” I mean the idea that God has two separate and distinct people, one heavenly and one earthly. This radical separation requires the invention of theories like the pre-trib rapture where the heavenly people is removed so God can once again begin dealing with the earthly people.
It is these radical who react violently if one were to refer to the Church in terms previously used of Israel. “Holy nation, royal priesthood.” The radicals would react against calling God’s covenant people, the children of Abraham, the “new Israel.”
The problem with this author’s entire analysis (other than the fact that its believability rests on many “ifs”) is based on one simple fact; he has failed to conclusively demonstrate anywhere in the Bible where a distinct chronology involving time employs a gap of several thousands of years to fulfill.
While it is creative, it is fundamentally unbiblical. Without the need for a “gap” there is no reason to believe that the “He” reference in Daniel 9:27 is not referring to Messiah.
Besides, how can an alleged “literalist” take the phrase “the command To restore and build Jerusalem” as Jeremiah’s prophecy rather than an actual command?
Yet another example of the futurists’ “literal when convenient” hermeneutics.
Uh huh. I provided dodumentation, both Jewish and Christian (F F Bruce is highly regarded) that refutes your claim. You offer nothing.
Does it make any sense at all that the Rabbi's would translate the Hebrew into Greek intentionally wrong? Why would they translate the Torah just fine but then blow it on the rest of the bible? Why would they include an apochrypha that isnt even in the Hebrew canon?
You WANT to believe the Rabbi's used words like virgin, pierced etc because they give a christological meaning. The Rabbi's would never have used such words because they knew the context of the text. They knew that Isaiah was speaking about a married woman and that the "sign" wasnt a virgin birth but the age of the child. What good was a virgin birth, 700 years in the future, to King Ahaz? None.
So Jesus made a covenant for only one week (Seven years)? And then after 3 ½ years invalidates that covenant? And wasn’t the Messiah (Jesus) “cut off” in the prior verse?
>>Besides, how can an alleged “literalist” take the phrase “the command To restore and build Jerusalem” as Jeremiah’s prophecy rather than an actual command?<<
“that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks”
“from the going forth of the command” is a command of that moment? When was the command issued? Was omitting that part intentional on your part to reinforce your viewpoint?
That’s not what it says:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:The timeline for the confirmation of the covenant and the total extent of the covenant are not the same.
The angel now returns to Christ. We have explained why he made mention of the coming slaughter; first, to shew the faithful that they had no reason for remaining in the body of the nation in preference to being cut off from it; and next, to prevent the unbelievers from being satisfied with their obstinacy and their contempt of their inestimable blessings, by their rejecting the person of Christ. Thus this clause was interposed concerning the future devastation of the city and temple. The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant. We know how sure and stable was God’s covenant under the law; he was from the beginning always truthful, and faithful, and consistent with himself. But as far as man was concerned, the covenant of the law was weak, as we learn from Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31, 32.) I will enter into a new covenant with you, says he; not such as I made with your fathers, for they made it vain. We here observe the difference between the covenant which Christ sanctioned by his death and that of the Jewish law. Thus God’s covenant is established with us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon our hearts; and thus his covenant is not engraven in stones, but in our hearts of flesh, according to the teaching of the Prophet Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 11:19.) Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. (John Calvin)
[6.] He must confirm the covenant with many. He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence. This covenant he shall confirm by his doctrine and miracles, by his death and resurrection, by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper, which are the seals of the New Testament, assuring us that God is willing to accept us upon gospel-terms. His death made his testament of force, and enabled us to claim what is bequeathed by it. He confirmed it to the many, to the common people; the poor were evangelized, when the rulers and Pharisees believed not on him. Or, he confirmed it with many, with the Gentile world. The New Testament was not (like the Old) confined to the Jewish church, but was committed to all nations. Christ gave his life a ransom for many. [7.] He must cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices, shall supercede them and set them aside; when the substance comes the shadows shall be done away. He causes all the peace-offerings to cease when he has made peace by the blood of his cross, and by it confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation. By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, he took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews shows what a better priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, we have now than they had under the law, as a reason why we should hold fast our profession. (3.) Concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Jewish church and nation; and this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah, not only because it was the just punishment of those that put him to death, which was the sin that filled up the measure of their iniquity and brought ruin upon them, but because, as things were, it was necessary to the perfecting of one of the great intentions of his death. He died to take away the ceremonial law, quite to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it. But the Jews would not be persuaded to quit it; still they kept it up with more zeal than ever; they would hear no talk of parting with it; they stoned Stephen (the first Christian martyr) for saying that Jesus should change the customs which Moses delivered them (Acts 6:14); so that there was no way to abolish the Mosaic economy but by destroying the temple, and the holy city, and the Levitical priesthood, and that whole nation which so incurably doted on them. This was effectually done in less than forty years after the death of Christ, and it was a desolation that could never be repaired to this day. And this is it which is here largely foretold, that the Jews who returned out of captivity might not be overmuch lifted up with the rebuilding of their city and temple, because in process of time they would be finally destroyed, and not as now for seventy years only, but might rather rejoice in hope of the coming of the Messiah, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world, which should never be destroyed. Now, [1.] It is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction, that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come (Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies, Mt. 22:7), or the Gentiles (who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah) shall destroy the Jews. [2.] That the destruction shall be by war, and the end of that war shall be this desolation determined. The wars of the Jews with the Romans were by their own obstinacy made very long and very bloody, and they issued at length in the utter extirpation of that people. [3.] That the city and sanctuary shall in a particular manner be destroyed and laid quite waste. Titus the Roman general would fain have saved the temple, but his soldiers were so enraged against the Jews that he could not restrain them from burning it to the ground, that this prophecy might be fulfilled. [4.] That all the resistance that shall be made to this destruction shall be in vain: The end of it shall be with a flood. It shall be a deluge of destruction, like that which swept away the old world, and which there will be no making head against. [5.] That hereby the sacrifice and oblation shall be made to cease. And it must needs cease when the family of the priests was so extirpated, and the genealogies of it were so confounded, that (they say) there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron. [6.] that there shall be an overspreading of abominations, a general corruption of the Jewish nation and an abounding of iniquity among them, for which it shall be made desolate, 1 Th. 2:16. Or it is rather to be understood of the armies of the Romans, which were abominable to the Jews (they could not endure them), which overspread the nation, and by which it was made desolate; for these are the words which Christ refers to, Mt. 24:15, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, stand in the holy place, then let those who shall be in Judea flee, which is explained Lu. 21:20, When you shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies then flee. [7.] That the desolation shall be total and final: He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, that is, he shall make it completely desolate. It is a desolation determined, and it will be accomplished to the utmost. And when it is made desolate, it should seem, there is something more determined that is to be poured upon the desolate (v. 27), and what should that be but the spirit of slumber (Rom. 11:8, 25), that blindness which has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in? And then all Israel shall be saved. (Matthew Henry)All of the things that went into the establishment or confirmation (“make strong”**) of the covenant lasted for one week. This included the teaching ministry, Christ death and resurrection, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, up until the time of the public ministry of Paul to the gentiles.
** And he shall confirm the covenant - literally, "he shall make strong" - והגביר vehı̂gebı̂yr. The idea is that of giving strength, or stability; of making firm and sure. The Hebrew word here evidently refers to the "covenant" which God is said to establish with his people - so often referred to in the Scriptures as expressing the relation between Him and them, and hence used, in general, to denote the laws and institutions of the true religion - the laws which God has made for his church; his promises to be their protector, etc., and the institutions which grow out of that relation. The margin reads it, more in accordance with the Hebrew, "a," meaning that he would confirm or establish "a covenant" with the many. According to this, it is not necessary to suppose that it was any existing covenant that it referred to, but that he would ratify what was understood by the word "covenant;" that is, that he would lead many to enter into a true and real covenant with God. This would be fulfilled if he should perform such a work as would bring the "many" into a relation to God corresponding to what was sustained to him by his ancient people; that is, bring them to be his true friends and worshippers. (Albert Barnes)
Bruce’s (truncated) quote appears on a number of Jewish web sites . The Bruce’s quote does not address the issue of the Septuagint being limited to the Torah prior to the time of Christ (although a number of comments attempt to make that claim). Note his words, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, …” Not Torah. The Septuagint already included all the books of the canonical Hebrew Scriptures by the time of Christ.
On the surface, he appears to be mainly speaking of the standardization and preservation of the Septuagint, not the original authorship nor the extent of that work. It’s pretty clear from the historical data that the Christians had a real hand in its preservation. I’m not aware of any quotes by Bruce on the Philo legend: 72 rabbis working in 72 days.
I believe the scholarly consensus today is that the Septuagint was completed in a period of about 2 centuries, beginning in 3rd century BC, and covered most if not all of the canonical Hebrews Scripture.
They knew that Isaiah was speaking about a married woman and that the "sign" wasnt a virgin birth but the age of the child.
And thus we get to the heart of the issue. Christ’s apostles (infallibly/inspired according to Christian doctrine) interpreted the OT prophecies and applied them to Christ. Christ was born of a true virgin, i.e., a woman who had not known a man sexually. Those who deny Christ within the Jewish community obviously have a vested interested in undoing the apostolic work as possible. No one should be surprised.
I don’t understand your question.
I don’t believe I have ever read such diverse and disconnected from true Scriptural accuracy as I just did with that post. I won’t even address it.
I don’t think it really matters.
You misquoted the text of Daniel 9:27 and then drew an invalid inference from your misquote.
I was only trying to help you limp back to the truth.
Might have...F F Bruce is acknowleging that there is serious problems with that premise. Noteably, the obvious differences in style, grammar, translation of the rest of the Septuagint from the Torah portion. If the Septuagint was uniform in structure throughout, you would have a point. It is not however.
And thus we get to the heart of the issue. Christ’s apostles (infallibly/inspired according to Christian doctrine) interpreted the OT prophecies and applied them to Christ. Christ was born of a true virgin,
Ha Alma means the young woman. There is no way to get vigin out of the text. Do you believe there was two virgin births? To be of any use to king Ahaz, who the text is trying to confer the prophecy, then there must have been two virgin births. That would therefore not be a unique event. It would also mean that there would be two god-man entities. The prophecy was not the birth of the child but the age of the child and his diet. Before he would reach the age of maturity and that he would eat well in times of plenty.
Also, the young woman would name him Immanuel. Jesus name in the greek is the Hebrew name Joshua. G-d saves. Not even close.
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.
Certainly misleading if not downright deceptive to the uninitiated.
Now we seem to be getting a rather different story having to do, not with actuality, but with reliability.
Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy's project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. … So.... even if the whole of Tanakh was completed in LXX before Jesus, the Torah portion is the only reliable part.
That quite an admission. Although the Ptolemy connection to the actual production of the Septuagint is still questioned by scholars, “three centuries following Ptolemy's project” is still pre-Christian.
There’s no real evidence that Christians translated any significant portion of the LXX, now is there? They may have made revisions in the preservation effort, but hardly at the level of translation ala your initial bogus claim.
Let’s just be clear here; Bruce is not supporting your initial bogus claim that the non-Torah portions of the Tanakh were written by Christians, now is he?
No offense but anyone could get your example from a very elementary Classical Greek class on day one. The different Greek renderings of “love”... really?
Seriously, what the hell is it with dispensationalists that make you constantly dodge issues and ignore questions with bovine responses? The level of obscurity is mind boggling. Now quit fussing over the Greek forms of love and go back and answer the damn question!
The bitterness you seem to have deep in your soul seems to scream from most of your posts. I have no way of knowing the source but peace and love certainly are not flowing from the words you type.
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.