Posted on 06/07/2021 5:23:12 PM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
The Talmud/Mishnah states that the Masoretic Text (a medieval text used by the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc) was corrupted as the Talmud/Mishnah described conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis intentionally altering scriptures and thus they ultimately corrupted it). The Septuagint (translated in the mid 3rd century BC) is far older than the Masoretic Text (MT) and the MT isn't original scripture and not a BC text anyway.
Paleo Hebrew, used after Moses' time and used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances; the Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT/KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE/ that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70, thus agreeing with St. Stephen in Acts 7:14.
2.) The older DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agree with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NASB/NIV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE) saying the angels are to worship messiah.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly (some evidence for #4) has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from Psalm 145 that the DSS and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6(7): a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE): Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16, the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronology of Genesis 11 and the year of the flood of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. Shem is not Melchizedek:
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD that agree with the LXX: 2 Esdras, Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint but used Square Hebrew texts to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
*Justin Martyr said the scriptures were being altered in his time period. See Jeremiah 8:8.
▪︎https://biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used the Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Outside Judea, close to 100% of the diaspora synagogue inscriptions are in Greek. In Judea, where the default language is Aramaic, 80% of synagogue inscriptions are in Greek.
Some have said the Deuterocanon was never written in Hebrew but the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved that to be false as at least 3 so far (Baruch, Sirach, and Tobit of the Deuterocanon), have been found within the DSS written in Hebrew, and using the word "recension" against them is a continual knee-jerk reaction to the Deuterocanon being written in Hebrew and thus a moving of the goal posts.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then later the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:6).
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT in favor of the totality of the Septuagint, Paleo Hebrew, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, Peshitta, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and others which provide substantially older Old Testaments.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Given that Septuagint scrolls were found with Paleo Hebrew and Square Hebrew scrolls in the DSS, one would again be hard-pressed to prove that Christians composed the Septuagint and, as well, the Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings within the next 100 years.
Septuagint Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BC, and Septuagint Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BC thus Christians and certainly not Origen created it. Furthermore...
The translation of Isaiah contains allusions to historical situations and events that point to the years 170-150 BCE" (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, p 131, 2012).
Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), dated 50 BC, Deut. fragments dates 2nd century BC.
Proseuche (forerunner to the synagogue) foundation stones in Egypt are dated 120 to 240 BC. If you gather in a church or synagogue, its origins are found in Hellenistic Egypt as they are foreign to temple-only thought. The synagogue ultimately spread to Israel along with the Septuagint (Theodotus inscription, in Greek, a synagogue in Jerusalem, 1st century AD).
Archaeological surveys "...of Palestinian synagogue inscriptions revealed that 67 were in Greek, 54 were in Aramaic and 14 in Hebrew. Most of the Greek inscriptions were found in the coastal and important inland cities." (Caesarea under Roman rule, Lee Levine).
Concerning archeological findings: the Delos synagogue dates to 250 BC and the Magdala synagogue: dates to 50 BC.
There was almost exclusive use of Greek in all synagogue inscriptions everywhere in the world.
Secondly, sure, we all know that men and women having relations the normal way would be a sign from God. /sarcsam.
Christians: But OUR god is the SON of G-d! (Like the Greeks and Romans do... but like, without Zeus seizing maidens)
Jews: Do you even read Hebrew braugh?
St. Paul said divisions would come to ferret out the true from the false.
There were divisions during (proto Gnostics versus the Apostles, etc) and even after the the Apostolic Age and even worse Gnostics then. Then the Arians, etc.
Alas, if the Pharisees, Sadducees, the Tannaim, and Masoretes after them would have just done the right thing and accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior this would be a moot point. And if the Masoretes hadn’t been heretics and did their own thing creating corrupt texts, again this would be a moot point.
The skeptics? They’ve been around a long time. They argued well over a century ago the Hittites historical existence was fantasy, thus the story of the Hittites being in the land when Abraham came in was false, thus the story of Abraham also was false.
When archaeological discoveries proved the existence of the Hittites in the Levant, both in and outside of Palestine, they, like skeptics today, refuse to believe and repent and mive on to ongoing unbelief. Jesus raised the dead and they in His time refused to believe.
“If the King James version was good enough for the Apostles and Paul, it’s good enough for me.”
ha ha nicely played.
You have no substantive retort for I or AndtheBear so you trot that tired, old nonsense out.
Secondly, why say “Jews: ...”?
Do you speak for them?
Yes, the KJV is dashed.
Nicely played indeed.
Wrong
Obviously, the fewer languages a document has to pass through the closer its final meaning will be with the original intent. Since the Old Testament part of your Bible is translated directly into English from Hebrew, it’s always a good idea to compare a New Testament quote with the Old Testament passage from which it was taken to see what, if any, differences you find. Most of the time the differences are insignificant, but sometimes they can be quite noticeable.
Why not ask where I get the chutzpah to speak for all Christians?
Well for the truly skeptical in the sense that they are careful and reserved about jumping to conclusions, we have no worries. Such a person has a good idea of when they only have a superficial knowledge of something and resist going off on tangents with half baked understandings.
For those who simply see religion in particular as something that is not to be taken seriously, then I think it is foolish to take their evaluation seriously. Rather we should just be real with each other, and not patronize them by second guessing what they are thinking about what we say. Nobody likes to feel like they are being "sold" something. People instinctively trust people that are just being straight up over people that seem to be second guessing how others will take what they say.
Bookmark
The Christian definition of Jesus’s worship is not the same as the Greek Hercules.
Jesus as viewed by Christians is part of the One God in the way your voice is part of you yet not you as an entity.
This is not comparable to Zeus vs Heracles
In which century was that theology hammered out?
Wow. What a substantive, powerful retort from you.
Why was Maccabees removed from the KJV and left out of later translations? It seems it was in the KJV as late as the 1800's then dropped. I've gotten 50 different answers but most make no sense. Everything from saving paper and ink to the British wanting to hide it from the unruly colonists talking revolution. What say you?
Since the Dead Sea Scrolls contain not only Paleo and Square Hebrew scrolls but also Septuagint, we can compare the far more ancient Paleo with the MT, the far more ancient Square Hebrew with the MT, and both with the MT, and in a plethora of plethora of areas, many in key areas, they agree separately and together against the MT.
And given several are passages that deal with the Lord and Savior Jesus Crust and given the Masoretes had an anti-Christ agenda and were working with corrupted scrolls, we toss the MT now.
Why should I cupcake, when neither I nor anyone else has had the temerity to say “Christians: ...” as you did when you said “Jews: ...”?
And why should I when you still haven’t responded to AndTheBear or I from our initial replies to you as you keep flailing and deflecting time and again?
See, here’s how it goes: I believe Moses existed. But even before I was a believer, I knew he lived a long time before Jesus Christ did, and knew there is far, far less evidence he existed than Jesus Christ existed thus therefore far less likelihood that supernatural occurences were occurring on Mount Sinai and that God appeared to Moses than there was God speaking from the mountain top where Jesus and His disciples went up on and where Mosra and Elijah appeared. Ergo, both considered, more likely God and Jesus on the mountain top together was far more likely.
So in the end, it takes a special kind of clueless to believe in Moses but not in Jesus Christ on these matters.
In what language was the Dialogue “hammered” out by God?
Egyptian Hieroglyphs?
Proto-Sinaitic script?
Paleo Hebrew?
Square Hebrew was a a long number years in the future as moreso for Vowelled Masoretic.
And highly doubtful that Paleo Hebrew was used as there is zero proof its use stretches back to the 15th or 16th centuries BC.
So it’s either Egyptian Hieroglyphs or Proto-Sinaitic script as the people would have been able to understand them as well as the scriptures declare Moses was schooled in all the ways of the Egyptians.
Or did God not use Egyptian Hieroglyphs or Proto Sinaitic and instead use a language no one could understand? Your choice, genius.
Followed by Strong's.
*Decalogue
What language did God “hammer” it out in?
Phinneous : In which century was that theology hammered out?
In the 1st century - before the destruction of Jerusalem. That's why:
Note that Rabbinical Judaism's theology also dates from the latter half of the 1st century with Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai, but was fleshed out in the period from 70 AD to the 8th century in Baghdad.
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.