Posted on 06/07/2021 5:23:12 PM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
Thank you for all of your koolaide. Here is the Jewish perspective:
https://www.aish.com/h/sh/tat/48969731.html
We’re not politically liberals here. Don’t project the inadequacies of your scripture onto the Jews.
Note:
Jews speak Hebrew and can read our Tanach. You can’t.
The errors, known, are over the smallest insignificant spelling of the consonant of a word— (if you didn’t click above, the difference between color and colour, gray and grey)
The Torah explicitly sayd G-d is not a man, yet you insist He is, G-d forbid.
The Tanach does not require the Messiah to perform miracles yet you insist that is proof. (I suppose you swoon over stigmata and (gosh— can’t think of the word...the jars full of dead priests’ body parts on display....)
G-d says don’t eat blood. Christians: Let’s symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of our man-god!
Such shtus and drek. The biggest telltale of the projection is— ready? It would be totally logical for the Christian to simply say, “The Jews understand their own text differently than we understand their text.” But since we have different conclusions from that text— it’s rather “The Jews have scales over their eyes and can’t understand their Bible like we Christians can.” Rubbish.
Chronos— you can’t understand the text or the Talmud. Who will you quote for me? Do you even Latin or Greek, braugh?
Look at the Bible in Paintings list on FR. Y’all love you some Jesus. What do you know— a god you can see and some could touch. And he’s there for you— in pictures (thou shall make no image....) And he loves you! And the hair is perfect! But you have 2/3rds of the world so how could you be wrong? But you have such varied texts and accounts from non-eye-witnesses....but you have such thin-gruel historical accounts....but you have an ever-morphing understanding of the trinity. The theological gymnastics is better than the Olympics! And you still didn’t settle it up until Luther (Jew-hater,) and even after with Joseph Smith...and what’s next?
You are all over the map and the biggest outcome is— just believe in Jesus. Dude, we laugh at you. We should cry for you. Look at the Tanach. All G-d wants from you is to return to Him. There are seven commandments for you (and their implications for a righteous life, society, family.)
Truly the best take-away for you would be to continue your exact same thoughts, speech, and actions— but add a class in Biblical Hebrew. Make that one change and see where it leads you. Ask your pastor— hahaha! He’s petrified too what he’ll find out.
Well there is, and your statements are either sophistry or ignorance. For while Luther himself translated and included Deuterocanonical ("second canon) books in his translation, these were placed separately as not being Scripture proper (and later publishers dropped them to save printing cost back then, since there was lack of demand for them.
And the issue of the canon was not definitively settled for Catholics until Trent. Thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books could and did continue down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon. Read the linked page before parroting the typical RC propaganda which FR has seen most off - and refutations over the years, by the grace of God. But I see that you are quite new here.
And as for the LXX,
The Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, beginning in the 3rd century B.C. and thought to be completed (as regards Jewish translators) early in the 2nd century A.D. The title LXX refers to the 70 scribes, and with “Septuagint” from “septuaginta” denoting 70 in Latin (In his City of God 18.42, while repeating the story of Aristeas with typical embellishments, Augustine adds the remark, "It is their translation that it has now become traditional to call the Septuagint" — The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, p. 72).
As for type of translation, it was more a paraphrase,
“It was not a literal translation, however, since it incorporated commentary in the text, consciously attempting to harmonize biblical and Greek thought and to include halakhic and aggadic ideas which were current in Palestinian commentary. Some interesting features of the text are its deletion of all anthropomorphic expressions and the provision of many readings of the text which are different from the standard masoretic version. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12632.html
The Septuagint was favored by the principal force behind early acceptance of the apocrypha, that being Augustine, who believed the miraculous legend of its translation. According to one account from the Talmud, (BT Megillah 9a, Of 3.) and which contains many strange ideas, Philadelphus [Ptolemy II] sent for seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each tribe of Israel, to undertake the work. He secluded these men on the island of Phares, where each worked separately on his own translation, without consultation with one another. According to the legend, when they came together to compare their work, the seventy-two copies proved to be identical.
This story, while highly unlikely, convinced many that the Septuagint had a supernatural quality which helped gain its acceptance for several hundred years, until the time of Jerome some four hundred years after Christ. (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html)
The story of the origin of the LXX was embellished as time went on and is considered a fable by scholars, and Jerome chided Augustine for criticizing his differences from it and misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html).
Greek was the common language in the Roman empires, and the N.T. does reference the LXX heavily, which certifies that at least these parts of the Torah (see below) were faithful translations, while this was followed by the Hebrew Masoretic translations (due to Jewish doubt on the LXX) and which Jerome affirmed, and which all major Bible translations translate the O.T. from.
However, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
For many reasons (and see note on Jamnia) it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.
For while Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.
Also, Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)
Addressing the theory that the first century Septuagint contained the the apocryphal books, we have such scholarly testimony as the below: The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin. An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the NT. Also, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the or rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees. Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt," yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, ex-cluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. Mulder, M. J. (1988). (Mikra: text, translation, reading, and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Phil.: Van Gorcum. p. 81 ) Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35. British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64) Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin. Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html) Likewise Gleason Archer affirms, Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm) The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59) Also, The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^ As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd
Can you explain? I mean, they are portrayed as completely genetically separate - descended from another ancestor. yet they are linguisticially, ethnically, genetically even culturally cousins or even closer
This is a blanket statement and false. Note all Jews can speak Hebrew. Many can, but not "Jews can speak..." signifying an innate ability for all Jews
Also the very dispute in the text is that the Tanach in Hebrew differs and the versions available now post-date the Septuagint
You still lashing out?
Why are you still running away from answering I and AndTheBear statements earlier to you?
Dr. Michael Brown is not a bad chap, but he ignores the many archaeological discoveries such as the numerous clay seals and so forth written in Paleo Hebrew and that they and the time periods they have been linked to shows that it’s use stretches back to the 12th century BC, and thus Moses and the Israelites had to have been using Proto Sinaitic script or less likely Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the 14th and 15th century BC.
Sorry to tell you this, but it appears that God is comfortable using whatever language is necessary to transmit His message to humanity and ones they can actually read.
You don’t speak for all Jews. You don’t even know the OT/Tanakh you claim to know.
You can’t even answer simple things posed to you here by I and AndTheBear but what you do is act like a liberal and personally attack people.
You need to stop doing this and treat people with the same respect afforded you or do you think you are high and mighty and better tham others?
And you are now attacking that Jesus was God and Man. We have enough of that from Democrats and progressives to see you parade that drivel here.
And when did I say this?
“Tanach does not require the Messiah to perform miracles yet you insist that is proof.”
And then you act horribly here to Christians attacking without cause when you say this:
“I suppose you swoon over stigmata and (gosh— can’t think of the word...the jars full of dead priests’ body parts on display....)”
You are a Christian hater and Christ hater further evidenced by this from you:
“G-d says don’t eat blood. Christians: Let’s symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of our man-god!
Such shtus and drek. The biggest telltale of the projection is— ready? It would be totally logical for the Christian to simply say, “The Jews understand their own text differently than we understand their text.” But since we have different conclusions from that text— it’s rather “The Jews have scales over their eyes and can’t understand their Bible like we Christians can.” Rubbish”
Why are you so Christophobic and hate Jesus and His followers?
You are clearly triggered because you have provided zero rebuttals to the OP and you know deep inside the MT’s days are numbered and will be replaced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And no one has tried to proselytize you here, so why are you parading the domineering Noahide Laws here trying to proselytize others?
Excellent info you have provided here and several things I did not know.
And what is it with the abject hatred coming from him in post #62, downright dragging Christ and Christians through the mud?
And what is it in that post with the proselytizing in post #62 to obey those rules he says are for Gentiles? Is that some thing now? No one here has tried to proselytize him.
Thank you for spending all of that time wasting our time and so now is needed Occam’s Razor: you have provided the minority opinion and provided outdated information from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s concerning the Septuagint. Septuagint books from the Tanakh, but not the Torah, were quoted in the 3rd and 2 century BC, genius, and archaeological evidence shows the Septuagint was used in Synagogues all over the Mediterranean and eventually into Palestine.
Again, thanks, but no thanks for your outdated, sectarian “information.”
Now...
The Dead Sea Scrolls have destroyed the Masoretic Text, dozens and dozens and dozens of times it disagrees with the MT, aligns more with the Septuagint, and the MT is the quintessential Christ-denying text and compiled by deceived Christ-deniers with an agenda carrying on the leaven of the Pharisees, and this is shown as the DSS preserves the originals for many Messianic scriptures that point to Jesus Christ and the Paleo Hebrew and Jewish scholars pre AD show that Shem is not Melchizedek.
And for just one example concerning the Deuterocanon, Judith was considered to be inspired scripture at the Council of Nicaea, the Deuterocanon was reaffirmed (learn what that word means) at the Council of Trent, as the canon of scriptute was fixed in 382 AD at the Council of Rome, the 393 Council of Hippo, and the 397 Council of Carthage. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses...”
God bless!
Israeli Scholars Discover Corrections, Erasures, Revisions in Oldest Biblical Manuscript
Analysis of Leningrad Codex shows that about a millennium ago, there were several different versions of the Bible that evolved over time
Again, the Masoretes were amateurs at best. Oh, but Saul was 1 when he became kimg and ruled for 2 years aling with them not even being able to memorize consonants but yet they could remember vowels though they left parts of the scriptures out. And let’s not forget Psalm 145!
I’m surprised there aren’t crayon marks on the most ancient of Masoretic texts.
Almost all academic sources I have looked at place the Exodus in the mid 1400’s BC.
Ergo, they used Proto-Sinaitic script.
People have many ancestors. While in the first two generations of the patriarchs, some additional wives were secured from the homeland, that is it, and even during this time, some wives were secured from the native population.
The incident of Melchizedek in Genesis points to a memory of having been linguistically distinct—quoting the RSC from Memory here—”the valley of SHavah, that is, the valley of the King”-—the Persian word which gave rise to the more modern term Shah is pointed to here, but that it needs to be translated in text points to the language itself having been lost.
If the Pentateuchal laws had been followed closely after the Exodus the people would have remained culturally distinct, but the second half of Joshua points to “diversity is our strength” being used as an alternate approach, with the result that in Judges the chosen people have effectively become culturally blended with the native population. Having one (or even several) ancestors that aren’t in common doesn’t guarantee anything.
They seem yo have far more than several ancestors in common.
Canaanites and Hebrews genetically are nearly the same people.
And linguistically phoenician and hebrew are sister languages
Excellent post, you skewered Daniel’s argument.
You mean contrary to what I referenced, you want to argue that books from the Deuteros were quoted in the 3rd and 2 century BC, without substantiation. The Tanakh consist of three divisions--the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, and you can only presume, contrary to what I proved, that these included the Deuteros, and that the Palestinian canon - which is what Christ most likely would have referenced as Scripture - contained them.
"eventually into Palestine."
"Eventually:" confirming my point.
"The Dead Sea Scrolls have destroyed the Masoretic Text, "
So you contend, however, that is not the issue what I am arguing, though seeing as the NT eclectically references line up to both sources, even if mostly those from LXX mss, then this is not an either/or issue. The NT determines what is Scripture in this case. Note also that mere correspondence of thought btwn the NT and an ancient sources or even a quote from one does not necessarily mean the latter is Scripture, versus being called just that, or by an authoritative term such as "it is written."
And seeing as this is summer here in NE, I do not intend to spend more hours on this issue (with my stiff arthritic fingers) than I have already in the past.
Bkmk
Little more time for you. Let’s see what the DSS Great Isaiah scroll says then— is that considered authoritative?
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#7:14
daniel1212-Well there is, and your statements are either sophistry or ignorance. For while Luther himself translated and included Deuterocanonical ("second canon) books in his translation, these were placed separately as not being Scripture proper (and later publishers dropped them to save printing cost back then, since there was lack of demand for them.
Ditto. For the author to make such a claim cast doubts on the author's intent and what seems to be an "educated" argument. I'm always suspicious of the motives of so called "Christians" in their criticism of scripture. Yes, on very rare occasions scripture might say 75 in one spot and 70 in another, but small anomalies never robs the text of doctrinal truths and they are very few and far between.
It might be noted that the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8:1-11 is considered suspect as to whether the event actually happened. While it is an interesting story, it doesn't have any doctrinal implications. Many translations today will annotate this scripture as not appearing in the earlier manuscripts. However, this event appears in the Septuagint as truth. So would this make the Septuagint superior?
I speak for all Jews, by the way. Just ask them.
None say it better than Rabbi Singer. I’m actually curious if you’ve ever gotten a Jewish answer before?
So, why is a pregnant young woman a sign for Ahaz and not for a miraculous virgin birth 7 centuries later?
https://outreachjudaism.org/dual-prophecy-virgin-birth/
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.
You can’t say “Christians” because there are a few thousand sects... There is one Orthodox Jewish body. If you can’t see that you’re focusing too much on the tassels or the furry hats some of us have.
Are you a.... recent believer?
“....far less likelihood that supernatural occurrences were occurring on Mount Sinai...”
A poll— does any devout Christian on FR agree with this opinion?
Christian FRiend— the Torah testifies to the supernatural nature of Mt Sinai. If you don’t believe A (the “OT”) then there is no B (the B-team— the NT). Yet logically A can be true without B being true. Even non believers can follow that simple logic. One would be clueless to object.
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.