• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul's misquotes of the Old Testament

InChrist

Free4ever
The scriptures below show the importance God places upon His Word and it is God Himself who has and does preserve His words intact throughout time. The Creator of heaven and earth is capable of doing so despite fallible humans.




You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deut. 4:2

So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord. Deut. 8:3

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. Proverbs 30:4-5


The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever. Psalm 12:6-7


The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. Psalm 119:160


The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.” Isaiah 40:8


But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. Matthew 24:35
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I believe that "nebelah" was found in the original Hebrew text, and I believe that the Jewish Rabbis originally translated "nebelah" as "soma". So I really do not believe that the 70 Rabbis were terrible translators.
Upon what are these beliefs based? What original Hebrew text? What 70 Rabbis?
Are you aware, for example, that the legend of the 70/72 Elders is questionable history and, even if reasonably accurate history, applies to the Torah only, with the translation of the other books of the Tanakh coming later?​
Not all beliefs are created equal.

Just FYI:
Legend

These titles refer to a legendary story, according to which seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. This legend is first found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and is repeated with embellishments by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and by various later sources, including St. Augustine. A version of the legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud:
King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher." God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.​
Philo of Alexandria, who relied extensively on the Septuagint, says that the number of scholars was chosen by selecting six scholars from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. [source]
L'shalom.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
That's nice.

But tell me, (a) on what grounds do you claim the Romans 3:10 is intended as a direct quote from Psalm 14 rather than a reference to Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 7:20. and (b) why would Paul intentionally 'misquote' readily available texts, thereby setting himself up for ridicule and exposure?

Marginal reference notes in NT bibles point to Psalm 14.

Why would Paul misquote the Tanakh? To serve his agenda that all are in need of Jesus' sacrifice since (according to Paul) they are unable to keep the Law. It's a cheap setup. And millions believe it and do not bother to research it carefully.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Marginal reference notes in NT bibles point to Psalm 14.

Why would Paul misquote the Tanakh? To serve his agenda that all are in need of Jesus' sacrifice since (according to Paul) they are unable to keep the Law. It's a cheap setup. And millions believe it and do not bother to research it carefully.

No, you've completely misunderstood the relation of Torah law to Christianity, the Christian perspective is that the Torah laws are not to be thought of as any means of salvation etc., it has nothing to do with Christians being "unable to keep the Law".
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Marginal reference notes in NT bibles point to Psalm 14.
From The Jewish Annotated New Testament: "10: Eccl 7.20. See also Ps 14:3; 53.4; 1QH 9.14."

Why would Paul misquote the Tanakh? To serve his agenda ...
That dirty dog!
And millions believe it and do not bother to research it carefully.
How fortunate that these unwashed masses have you (serving your agenda) to protect them from their own slavish gullibility.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
No, you've completely misunderstood the relation of Torah law to Christianity, the Christian perspective is that the Torah laws are not to be thought of as any means of salvation etc., it has nothing to do with Christians being "unable to keep the Law".
Paul and Jesus have different views on this. Jesus said a person had to be more righteous than the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Actually, Paul is quoting a verse that does not exist though it comes close to the ones that are referenced. In effect, Paul is creating a verse in order to support his ideoloogy. He wants the reader to believe that it is not possible for humans to be righteous. As you may know, Calvin loved the idea that humans are depraved, a really sick viewpoint IMO.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
By those verses and related verses it isn't being defined by 'law keeping', as far as I can tell.

Anyways this is off topic I'll post verses elsewhere.

I do not see this as 'off-topic' since it directly relates to my openning post in which Paul was alleging nobody was righteous. And yet the Hebrew bible and Xian bible include many references to righteous people. And I cannot think of a single person who was called righteous who did not strive to keep the Torah or to repent of sin if he transgressed it. So 'righteousness' always involves obeying God and his commands and laws.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I do not see this as 'off-topic' since it directly relates to my openning post in which Paul was alleging nobody was righteous. And yet the Hebrew bible and Xian bible include many references to righteous people. And I cannot think of a single person who was called righteous who did not strive to keep the Torah or to repent of sin if he transgressed it. So 'righteousness' always involves obeying God and his commands and laws.

Perhaps you can provide verses, though this could be a whole new thread easily.

Those verses as far as I can tell are not explanative enough of the subject.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
In context, it actually backs up my argument, it's saying that the laws don't automatically make someone righteous.

The context of the "More righteous than the Pharisees" part may include that Jesus was saying that they didn't actually fulfill the whole of the Law, especially with their artificial interpretations.

This sentiment is reinforced in John 7:19

John 7:19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"

New International Version (©1984)
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"New Living Translation (©2007)
Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! In fact, you are trying to kill me."
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The context of the "More righteous than the Pharisees" part may include that Jesus was saying that they didn't actually fulfill the whole of the Law, especially with their artificial interpretations.

This sentiment is reinforced in John 7:19

Yes, could be. But there is the indication to the contrary, IMO. As to the laws, it still has to be answered why a Christian should follow the Torah laws, and that goes for all Christians...is not the understanding of the Covenant different?
The most I can see is the Noahide laws for gentiles, optional Torah laws for Jews.
Look at how the Sabbath is re-interpreted, and the rebuking of the Pharissees, you can interpret it either way. Add to that the rest of the NT, and there is no clear indication that the Chriistian Gentile "graft" onto Yisrael should be systematically headed to being Torah True.
Another thread, but this is a major argument.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Yes, could be. But there is the indication to the contrary, IMO. As to the laws, it still has to be answered why a Christian should follow the Torah laws, and that goes for all Christians...is not the understanding of the Covenant different?
The most I can see is the Noahide laws for gentiles, optional Torah laws for Jews.
Look at how the Sabbath is re-interpreted, and the rebuking of the Pharissees, you can interpret it either way. Add to that the rest of the NT, and there is no clear indication that the Chriistian Gentile "graft" onto Yisrael should be systematically headed to being Torah True.
Another thread, but this is a major argument.

Well, I've gone over the Sabbath issue many times before. Even antinomian Christians usually agree Jesus didn't break the Sabbath. Even Jews today believe you can perform life-saving Surgery on the Sabbath. Same with Eye for an eye, modern Jews don't interpret that totally literally and for all situations regardless of the context either. Jesus was basically just like any other Torah commentator in that respect.

http://www.whyisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jesus-and-the-sabbath.pdf

If Jesus did change any of the Law, he wouldn't be Messiah, he'd be a false prophet.

As to why Christians should follow Torah Laws, yes that's an entire thread topic that's not necessarily relevant to the OP.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Well, I've gone over the Sabbath issue many times before. Even antinomian Christians usually agree Jesus didn't break the Sabbath. Even Jews today believe you can perform life-saving Surgery on the Sabbath. Same with Eye for an eye, modern Jews don't interpret that totally literally and for all situations regardless of the context either. Jesus was basically just like any other Torah commentator in that respect.

http://www.whyisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jesus-and-the-sabbath.pdf

If Jesus did change any of the Law, he wouldn't be Messiah, he'd be a false prophet.
Yes, I'm aware of the Sabbath issue.
Anyway, actually I agree, though Sabbath could be Sunday, I don't see any reason why not, we're using a different calendar anyway...yes, I know you partially agree with that.
As to why Christians should follow Torah Laws, yes that's an entire thread topic that's not necessarily relevant to the OP.
Nope, but it comes up if only using Jesus's teachings.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Yes, I'm aware of the Sabbath issue.
Anyway, actually I agree, though Sabbath could be Sunday, I don't see any reason why not, we're using a different calendar anyway...yes, I know you partially agree with that.

Where did I give the impression that I agree the Sabbath could be Sunday? I'm pretty sure we know what day of the week it's been since the ancient times.

Nope, but it comes up if only using Jesus's teachings.

And if only going by Jesus's teachings, it's as clear as day that Torah Law is 100% binding on ALL believers. The only place this remotely comes into dispute is when the Pauline writings and Acts enters the equation. In the first epistle of John it's not an issue at all, but in line with Jesus's teachings.
 
Top