DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Which is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Pay attention.
I was in a discussion with BSM1. Your input and school mastering is unneeded, unnecessary, unwarranted and unwanted.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Pay attention.
For example?
Hateful? How?
I think JS is just pointing out that many translations of the OT are either mistranslated or not faithful to the meaning, spirit or cultural context of the original authors.
Someone help me here. Apparently @DavidFirth believes that some insideous Jews, living after the destruction of the Second Temple, anticipated a Christian canon that would not be codified for centuries, and spitefully time-traveled back three centuries to in order to modify Hebrew Scripture in response.
Do I have this right?
You do realize the Apostles never had a version of the Bible? Right?
They did have what Christians call the old testament. The New Testament was at that time , a work in progress.
@DavidFirth , in this is a thread addressing translations of what Christians call the "OT," you claim ...
the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70.
Would you like to offer examples of changes made after the advent of Christianity? Or are you just spewing more of you anti-Jewish vitriol?
Then you're simply polluting the thread.
Then you're simply polluting the thread.
It is fairly common to hear this kind of thing. I remember being told something like it, however it is not a doctrine and so not everybody is told that. The easiest way for a layperson to roughly verify whether the scriptures have been altered is to read about the Septuagint (LXX) translation in a Bible handbook and also about the Dead Sea Scrolls.Someone help me here. Apparently @DavidFirth believes that some insideous Jews, living after the destruction of the Second Temple, anticipated a Christian canon that would not be codified for centuries, and spitefully time-traveled back three centuries to in order to modify Hebrew Scripture in response.
Do I have this right?
It's his brain-baby. Even calling it the "authorized version" is prideful because he authorized it, rather than the text (as the supposed word of god) being self-authorative.
This is absurd. Where do you think your "OT" came from?I would advise the opposite. I believe that the Christian Bible is authentic and the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70.
And how could you possibly know that? Were you there over 2000 years ago to witness events?I have my Bible and it is quite correct, thank you very much.
I hope you're aware at least that the above is not from the "OT", therefore it is irrelevant to the OP and what's being discussed.1 Corinthians 1
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
They did have the New Testament letters.
This is absurd. Where do you think your "OT" came from?
So, could you supply us with a link(s) as to where you got this "information" from?
And how could you possibly know that? Were you there over 2000 years ago to witness events?