Posted on 06/07/2021 5:23:12 PM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
Bkmk
Thumbs up: The Septuagint/Greek New Testament, Douay-Rheims, and the Peshitta all translated into English or whatnot.
Cool, yeah. Got it. And “ALMA” means virgin in Hebrew.
That’s the doctrine of antichrist coming from you.
Secondly, sure, we all know that men and women having relations the normal way would be a sign from God. /sarcsam.
And no, Isaiah wasn’t talking about Hezekiah either.
In the end, the Masoretic Text is just too corrupted to be trustworthy.
One of the more interesting discussions I have come across this year is a general skepticism over references to “The Septuagint”. Academicians I am familiar with avoid the use of the term Septuagint since it is an attempt to refer to a body of documents which purport to have come from Jewish scholars in Alexandria Egypt translated at a specific time. It turns out that there are wide disparities between Greek texts of O.T. books which are all ascribed to “The Septuagint”.
It is true that the New Testament writers used Greek texts for around two thirds of their quotations from the Old Testament. Thus, using Old Testament Greek texts is useful, but one must be wary of the conclusion that all ancient Old Testament Greek texts are uniform in content.
And thus the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls as they are the most ancient source and overwhelmingly don’t agree with the Masoretic Text and specifically in key areas.
And there isn’t one “The Masoretic Text “ anyway.
Lastly, the MT texts all descend from corrupted texts so given this we have the far more reliable and ancient DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aramaic Targums, the Peshitta, the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc, so no need for the MT.
Over the past weeks I have been reading some books on this very subject. Fascinating.
Indeed, quite fascinating.
The Septuagint can be found in numetous codices, not the least of which are the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Aexandrinus and others, all pretty much in agreement with each other, and all much older than the oldest Masoretic text of the many Masoretic texts.
Are you aware of any Paleo Hebrew for Psalm 40:6(7) that reads “a body you have prepared?” How much monkey business would attend to altering the characters to read, “my ears you have opened?” Hebrews 10:5 is the only reference to that phrase (”a body I have prepared”), so the surrounding verbiage must be what triggers a concern, since English translations differ so much at that point.
If the King James version was good enough for the Apostles and Paul, it’s good enough for me.
Have you looked?
Secondly, the compilers of the MT sadly targeted and removed or altered scriptures when God didn’t authorize it, as evidenced by far older Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous other older sources reveal this.
A virgin land -- "Mary"land, and Virginia.
The dove is a classic symbol for innocence and purity.
Columbia = "dove"
The Residence Act of 1790, officially titled An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States (1 Stat. 130), is a United States federal statute adopted during the second session of the First United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on July 16, 1790. The Act provides for a national capital and permanent seat of government to be established at a site along the Potomac River and empowered President Washington to appoint commissioners to oversee the project.
>>>
The Act specified that the laws of the state from which the area was ceded would apply in the federal district. Thus, Maryland laws applied on the eastern side of the Potomac, and Virginia laws applied on the western side in the District of Columbia until the government officially took residence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Progress
JerUSAlem of Gold, the "Star of the Empire".
If people knew where America was in Bible Prophecy, it would spoil the surprise.
What comes from the root of ALMA.
Why The Septuagint Is Superior To The Masoretic Text
"Seventy" in Greek [Ἑβδομήκοντα] = 570
Something got lost in translation.
That right there, that is funny.
And a young woman who is not a virgin giving birth is certainly so rare an occurrence we should look for it as a sign from God?
I have not looked. All I have is the MT and various translations onto English.
:)
The original 1611 King James Version contained the Deuterocanon and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without it with heavy fines and a year in jail.
Up until the late 1800’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had these books written hundreds of years before Christ called the Deuterocanon that were part of Wycliffe’s bible ( the original printing even commended the Book of Tobit) and part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible, until their removal in the late 1800’s!
Only for the last 120 plus years have protestants rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something ‘Roman Catholic’ about it.
Numerous references to it in the margins (of books considered canonical) treating it the same as other Scripture:
● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30
● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16
● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16
● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7
● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59
● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7
● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13
● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9
● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
● MATTHEW 27:43: He trusts in God; Let God Deliver Him now, if he desires him; for He Said, ‘I AM The Son Of God.’”
~OT Deuterocanonical “Wisdom Book” is Matthew’s source on the clear reference to “The Son of God” above.
WISDOM 2:15-16, 17-18: Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. 18 For if the righteous one is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
~Whereas, Psalms 22 omits “Son of God”.
The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996;
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html
But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!
There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
I've known Square Hebrews, and I've known Jivin' Hebrews.
Butt seriously, as the Pamploma bull said...
There are two discussions going on here. The one we see in this thread is among the scholars and students, concerning which texts are the most reliable and why, of which there is a fair amount of understandable controversy.
The other, which is as significant in my own thinking, is the discussion between believers and skeptics. Skeptics love nothing better than to listen to the arguments among the "Bible people" about the Masoretic texts, and the Square Hebrew texts, and the Septuagint translation, and the Peshitta translation, and does the KJV capture the truth of history and prophecy, and does alma really mean virgin, and so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby...
Cause all it does is justify in their minds the unreliability of Scripture as an historical text, a prophetic text, and a divinely-inspired text. And our God-given commission is to bring as many everyday people to Christ as possible (whether "possible" means determinist or free will is irrelevant here), to get them past their skepticism to belief and confession (Romans 10:9), to get them heaven- rather than hellbound.
So how do we get past the scholarly controversies without discounting them, but recognizing that practically any of the above texts can bring people to Christ because it is the living Spirit that draws the unbeliever through the living Word?
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.