Mistranslation in Hebrews

[Clear]

Hi RabiO

I am sorry for your temporary incapacitation. I will be patient and hope you recover full use of your arms and hands soon my friend.

Clear

 

[Milton Platt]

Proof god is gay?!?!

Can't be that....He humped some guy's girlfriend in the New Testament, remember? Maybe Bi

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IndigoChild

1) NATIONAL HEBREW (the language of the Masoretic) is NOT the original language of the texts.
The LXX and the Masoretic are BOTH translations from texts written in various original languages. Both were taken from earlier forms of the text and whatever languages the texts were written in and the LXX was translated by Jews into Greek in 300 b.c. and the text of the Masoretic was translated by Jews into National Hebrew almost a thousand years later.

Square script National Hebrew did not exist at the time the original texts were written, rather the original texts were presumably written in the languages of the various writers.


2) Just as Alexandrian Jews of 300 b.c. did not speak Hebrew, other Jews could not write in National Hebrew before it existed.
For example, Moses did not write in national Hebrew since national hebrew (the language of the Masoretic) did not exist at this time. Abraham, from UR, would have spoken and written in his language, the language of Ur or another language. National Hebrew did not exist at this time. Obviously the Semitic settlers of Canaan from which the Jews came did NOT speak hebrew but spoke the languages of their time and place.


3) There were multiple different versions of the texts ancientyly and no one knows what the original texts said.
For example, The talmud itself tells us that there were multiple versions (3 versions) of the hebrew text found at the time of the rebuilding of the temple and another (fourth) version was made from them. What did the actual, original text say? No one can say.

The point is that the National Hebrew version we call the Masoretic is not the original text but it is a translation of translations of various texts INTO National Hebrew just as the septuagint was translated into Greek.


4) Your English example of Old testament Hebrew text is also in technical error.
If the Old Testament texts in thrir various languages (in the pre-national hebrew time) were used to translate one bible into Greek and one into national Hebrew, then what is the point of the O.P. on this specific scripture? Especially since the Masoretic does NOT, technically use the word "husband" in the hebrew.

You are using yet another language (english) but your version that you have given us is not, technically, what the Hebrew (Masoretic) itself actually says.

If the Jewish texts contained errors then you are simply comparing one translation (the masoretic) having errors with another translation (the LXX) having errors. What is the point of your post?

Clear
φιτωακω

Oy vey!!!!

Since Rabbi O wants to address this, and he is much more qualified than I, I defer to him in this.

 

[Clear]

Hi IndigoChild ;


The Jewish version is in HEBREW. (IndigoChild, in post #38)
R i g h t…… But the Masorectic version from the Hebrew is also a later translation from earlier languages and thus this is why the Massorah discusses LISTS of examples of translational errors in the Masoretic. Translation into HEBREW causes it's own set of problems


The Hellenistic LXX, being a mere translation, is simply not going to be as good. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
This is a strange statement since the Masoretic is also a “mere translation”. All versions have errors. Since No one can tell us what the autographs (originals) said then it is difficult for anyone to say that the errors in the Hebrew are fewer or of lessor consequence than the errors in the Greek


Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
This is an other silly claim. For example, What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145 that are included in both the dead sea scrolls and in the Septuagint? In this specific case, the septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic.

The Masoretic not only has many, many errors, but it has much that is missing from the earlier versions of the textual Narrative.


An example of scripture missing from the Hebrew Masoretic is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse.

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the translated Jewish text reads: Quote: "And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.

This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

Thus, when you say “Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew.” . (in post #38) This is patently absurd. “ALWAYS” is a very dangerous word to use.



Yes, I'm saying that when the LXX replaced "husband," it was a mistranslation.
And THAT calls into question the "inerrancy" claims for the Christian scriptures. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I think that, IF you could say what the original word in the original texts the Jews used in the translation of the LXX, then you could say whether it was a correct translation or not. IF the original version the Jews used in creating the LXX read “turned away”, then the translation the Jews made in the LXX in this instance was correct.

Regarding your comment that some Christians inappropriately claim “inerrancy”, we are in total agreement. There are no ancient sacred texts of any size that we know of that do not have errors in them whether they be Jewish or Christian.


"Since Rabbi O wants to address this, and he is much more qualified than I, I defer to him in this." (IndigoChild, Post #43)
This is fine. In any case, IF your point is that all early texts of any significant size have errors, we are quite in agreement. If you are trying to claim inerrancy for the Masoretic, then you are simply repeating the same silly mistake the Christian “inerrantists” are making.


In any Case IndigoChild, I hope your spiritual journey is a wonderful and good journey. I hope your life is good and full of wonderful insights.


Clear
φιακφυω

 

[RabbiO]

Hi RabiO

I am sorry for your temporary incapacitation. I will be patient and hope you recover full use of your arms and hands soon my friend.

Clear

Thanks.

What I've learned is that if you're going to get old, don't be a klutz. A parking lot slip, a fall and an arm bone broken into three pieces. At least my right side no longer looks like I'm turning into a giant eggplant and the swelling is beginning to dissipate.

I really appreciate your patience.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks.

What I've learned is that if you're going to get old, don't be a klutz. A parking lot slip, a fall and an arm bone broken into three pieces. At least my right side no longer looks like I'm turning into a giant eggplant and the swelling is beginning to dissipate.

I really appreciate your patience.

Wishing you refuah shlemah, Rabbi.

 

[user4578]

What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145

It seems fairly obvious to me that this was an insertion/interpolation from verse 17, to provide the missing 'nun' verse for the supposed acrostic psalm, that is, beside all of the extraneous blessing phrases in that chapter(and also somewhat sloppy lettering in subsequent verses). Either way, the Septuagint is working against you here, so you can't have it both ways.

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11

This seems to me to be an uncharacteristic pairing of clauses, biblically speaking. The latter uses the phrase of 'going up' to a land to besiege it, which usually means the nation comes out of its place for the 'first' time, relatively speaking, and not as part of some ongoing campaign. With this, the DSS version would basically have Nahash going up for the 'first' time, twice. Perhaps then it was rather an attempt to reconcile a resulting potential conflict with 1 Samuel 12:12 based on an interpretation as to when exactly Saul was made king(1 Samuel 10:1,11:1-2), though officially it were evidently otherwise(1 Samuel 11:1-2;15).

 

[Clear]

Hi User4578



Regarding the issue of errors and imperfections in the Masoretic text.

Regarding your post #47

1) Your first comment has to do with my example where the septuagint agrees WITH the dead sea scrolls while both disagree with the Masoretic.

Are you saying the dead sea scrolls which agrees with the Septuagint are both incorrect and the Masoretic is correct? If the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint agree in a text, why would you claim that “the septuagint is working against [me] here”? Can you explain?


2) Your second comment has to do with the phrase "going up", however, Dead Sea Scrolls Samuel example does not use the phrase “going up” in verse #1, but instead, describes King Nahashs' harshness (which explains Israels firm opposition to him).

What does your comment on “going up” have to do with the fact that there is missing text in the hebrew Masoretic Bible?




Clear
σετωφυω

 

[user4578]

Can you explain?

It's right in your first case(Psalms 145), and wrong in your second(1 Samuel 11); this is how you are using the Sept. in your overall argument.

Dead Sea Scrolls Samuel example does not use the phrase “going up” in verse #1

I can't find the fragment, but I guess you're claiming that 'Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 1 Samuel 11' has it wrong?

 

[sooda]

It seems fairly obvious to me that this was an insertion/interpolation from verse 17, to provide the missing 'nun' verse for the supposed acrostic psalm, that is, beside all of the extraneous blessing phrases in that chapter(and also somewhat sloppy lettering in subsequent verses). Either way, the Septuagint is working against you here, so you can't have it both ways.


This seems to me to be an uncharacteristic pairing of clauses, biblically speaking. The latter uses the phrase of 'going up' to a land to besiege it, which usually means the nation comes out of its place for the 'first' time, relatively speaking, and not as part of some ongoing campaign. With this, the DSS version would basically have Nahash going up for the 'first' time, twice. Perhaps then it was rather an attempt to reconcile a resulting potential conflict with 1 Samuel 12:12 based on an interpretation as to when exactly Saul was made king(1 Samuel 10:1,11:1-2), though officially it were evidently otherwise(1 Samuel 11:1-2;15).

Going up makes perfect sense.. You have to go UP to get to Jerusalem.

The elevation of Jerusalem is between 2,133 – 2,756 feet (650 - 840 meters) above sea level.

The elevation of Jericho is 853 feet (260 meters) below sea level. Even at the lowest point of Jerusalem there is still a difference of 2,986 feet (498 meters) in elevation between the two cities.

 

[sooda]

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, “a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves” (Luke 10:30), he was really going down.

At 1,200 feet below sea level, Jericho is fully 3,700 feet lower than Jerusalem, although it’s only about 17 miles away.

And anybody who’s ever driven the road from Jericho to Jerusalem — in very low gear for buses and trucks — knows how steep the upward grade is.

 

[Clear]

Hi user4578 :


The context of our discussion
IndigoChild claimed “Where they (The Masoretic and the Septuagin) differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I disagreed and gave two example to indicate the Masoretic (Hebrew) is NOT "ALWAYS" to be preferred over Septuagint (greek). The Masoretic bible has disadvantages. I gave examples



1) I offered a simple example of missing text in the Masoretic version which IS included in the Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint versions

In post #44, I used the example of the line missing in the Masoretic Psalms 145 which ARE found in the Septuagint AND in the Dead Sea Scrolls to show the claim that the Masoretic is always preferred is incorrect.

You replied : ”Regarding the missing line in the Masoretic Psalms 145 : the Septuagint is working against you here, so you can't have it both ways.” (user4578, post #47)

When asked you to explain your disagrement, you responded : “It's right in your first case(Psalms 145), and wrong in your second(1 Samuel 11); this is how you are using the Sept. in your overall argument.” (user4578, post #49)

This second claim doesn’t explain your disagreement. Can you explain your comment?
Are you saying you now realize the Masoretic IS missing lines that ARE present in the Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint psalms 145?



2) I gave an example of a large amount of missing text in the Masoretic version which ARE included in other versions

I referred to 1 Samuel 11 verse one (1) where much of the narrative is missing from the Masoretic as a simple example of imperfection in the Masoretic Bible which have been included in other versions of the bible. There are many, many other examples of mistakes, errors, glosses, etc. in the Masoretic.

You commented : The latter uses the phrase of 'going up' to a land to besiege it, which usually means the nation comes out of its place for the 'first' time, relatively speaking, and not as part of some ongoing campaign. With this, the DSS version would basically have Nahash going up for the 'first' time, twice. (user4578, post #47)

I pointed out this was incorrect since verse one does contain the phrase “going up’ and asked you to explain the point you were attempting to make. (Clear, Post #48)

You then made another claim “It's right in your first case(Psalms 145), and wrong in your second(1 Samuel 11); this is how you are using the Sept. in your overall argument. I can't find the fragment, but I guess you're claiming that 'Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 1 Samuel 11' has it wrong? #49 (user4578, post #49)

This claim also does not explain the point you are attempting to make nor why my example in 1 Samual 11:1 is incorrect. Can you coherently explain the point you are trying to make?



3) Regarding your assumption
You wrote “…I guess you're claiming that 'Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 1 Samuel 11' has it wrong? (user4578, post #49)

No, you are confused. I am NOT claiming the dead sea scrolls is incorrect.

My example simply shows the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a LOT of text in this example which is missing from the Masoretic and that the Dead Sea Scroll text has been used to correct multiple others versions of the bible.



In any case, If you can explain your claim and the data upon which you are basing this claim, we can examine or discuss your claim. I hope your journey is good user4578.


Clear
σεσεσιω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi user4578 :


The context of our discussion
IndigoChild claimed “Where they (The Masoretic and the Septuagin) differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I disagreed and gave two example to indicate the Masoretic (Hebrew) is NOT "ALWAYS" to be preferred over Septuagint (greek). The Masoretic bible has disadvantages. I gave examples

I usually only answer the posts that appear in my alert feature. It's possible that this did not contain a quote by me in quote brackets.

I would very much like to read this. Could you give the post number?

 

[Clear]

Hi IndigoChild

Each of my quotes in the posts you refer to will have a source post number. For example, the first sentence I quoted is :

IndigoChild claimed “Where they (The Masoretic and the Septuagin) differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I underlined the post number. Each of the quotes in my post should similarly be indexed (unless I thought the source was obvious).

If you remember, you declined to discuss my criticism of your theory, saying "Since Rabbi O wants to address this, and he is much more qualified than I, I defer to him in this." (IndigoChild, Post #43) Thus, I assumed you were not going to discuss my specific criticism of your theory.


I hope your journey is good IndigoChild..

Clear

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IndigoChild

Each of my quotes in the posts you refer to will have a source post number. For example, the first sentence I quoted is :

IndigoChild claimed “Where they (The Masoretic and the Septuagin) differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I underlined the post number. Each of the quotes in my post should similarly be indexed (unless I thought the source was obvious).

If you remember, you declined to discuss my criticism of your theory, saying "Since Rabbi O wants to address this, and he is much more qualified than I, I defer to him in this." (IndigoChild, Post #43) Thus, I assumed you were not going to discuss my specific criticism of your theory.


I hope your journey is good IndigoChild..

Clear

Clear:

I very much want to dialogue with you, but I am not getting your posts. Apparently, you keep putting up posts to me which do not either quote me or address me with the ampersand as in @IndigoChild5559.

It is just by CHANCE that I saw this post. I usually only see posts that are in my alert feature, AND I only get quotes, ampersands, and a few random posts in my alert box.

The above post does not direct me with a link or post # to any other post to read, so I don't know where I'm supposed to go. Are they new posts they you will be writing or old posts that you want me to go to? You didn't really say.

But basically, I believe that the heart of the problem with me not addressing your posts is that you don't understand how to quote the my posts. You must hit the reply button so that it quotes my post before you reply. OR you use the ampersand and my nick.

I truly hope that this helps our dialogue!

 

[user4578]

No, you are confused.

One thing also I would like to have explained to me is how the intro of 1 Samuel 11 in the DSS is at all to be reconciled with 1 Samuel 12:11-12. Basically the traditional text in those verses says that at the time when God was their king(verse 12b) and they had peace(verse 11), they were 'challenged' by the Ammonites(verse 12a), and so afterward 'asked' Samuel for a king, that is, aside from that which they asked at the first in 1 Samuel 8:1-5. Now with this notion of 'challenged', things make sense, they can still conceivably be said to have been at peace when they asked for a king the second time; but if you turn this word into 'attacked', like as in 'the right eye' of tens of thousands of men east of Jordan, then you have a paradox in 1 Samuel 12:12, whereby they were said to have been at peace when they asked for a king the second time, yet were in fact under attack.

By the way also, I did end up finding the fragment, and it does match the submitted link's translation very well.

 

[Clear]

Clear:

I very much want to dialogue with you, but I am not getting your posts. Apparently, you keep putting up posts to me which do not either quote me or address me with the ampersand as in @IndigoChild5559.

It is just by CHANCE that I saw this post. I usually only see posts that are in my alert feature, AND I only get quotes, ampersands, and a few random posts in my alert box.

The above post does not direct me with a link or post # to any other post to read, so I don't know where I'm supposed to go. Are they new posts they you will be writing or old posts that you want me to go to? You didn't really say.

But basically, I believe that the heart of the problem with me not addressing your posts is that you don't understand how to quote the my posts. You must hit the reply button so that it quotes my post before you reply. OR you use the ampersand and my nick.

I truly hope that this helps our dialogue!

Thank you for the tips in using the posting tools. The reason that I have cut and pasted posts rather than quote the entire post is that much of what people say is irrelevant to the discussion and sometimes I simply want to respond to a single sentence inside their post. I will see if I can alert you better. Are you wanting to discuss your claim regarding the Masoretic? I see the various versions and early texts as having specific strengths and weaknesses rather than feeling that a single version is the "best for all purposes." It is not that I think the Masorettes were incompetent when they created the Masoretic version of the Bible, but i do not feel any early sacred text of any significant size is inerrant or superior in all cases over other texts when discussing religious history.

In any case, Good luck Indigochild. I hope your journey is good in this life.

Clear
σιτωτωω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for the tips in using the posting tools. The reason that I have cut and pasted posts rather than quote the entire post is that much of what people say is irrelevant to the discussion and sometimes I simply want to respond to a single sentence inside their post. I will see if I can alert you better.

In any case, Good luck Indigochild. I hope your journey is good in this life.

Thank you for your well wishes. Right back at ya!

Clear
σιτωτωω

I think at this point our earlier conversation has been forgotten.

As you can see, there is a way to divide up posts (and you can always delete whatever you want).

Let's say I want to place the following within a quote box:
"Are you wanting to discuss your claim regarding the Masoretic? I see the various versions and early texts as having specific strengths and weaknesses rather than feeling that a single version is the "best for all purposes." It is not that I think the Masorettes were incompetent when they created the Masoretic version of the Bible, but i do not feel any early sacred text of any significant size is inerrant."

What I do is place the word QUOTE within brackets at the beginning and /QUOTE in brackets (called end-quote) at the end. You can also do it in lower case. To show you, I'm going to misspell the word quote, so that it doesn't actually put the quote into the box.

[qu.ote]Are you wanting to discuss your claim regarding the Masoretic? I see the various versions and early texts as having specific strengths and weaknesses rather than feeling that a single version is the "best for all purposes." It is not that I think the Masorettes were incompetent when they created the Masoretic version of the Bible, but i do not feel any early sacred text of any significant size is inerrant.[/qu.ote]

Take out the period and it will come out when you save like this:

Are you wanting to discuss your claim regarding the Masoretic? I see the various versions and early texts as having specific strengths and weaknesses rather than feeling that a single version is the "best for all purposes." It is not that I think the Masorettes were incompetent when they created the Masoretic version of the Bible, but i do not feel any early sacred text of any significant size is inerrant.

Sometimes I want to quote something from another post as well. I do this by opening another tab in my browser, and finding the post, hitting reply, and deleting the superfluous text.j

 

[Clear]

I think at this point our earlier conversation has been forgotten.

Hi IndigoChild;
My response had to do with your various claims in post #38. For examples:

You said : "The Jewish version is in HEBREW. (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded : "R i g h t…… But the Masorectic version from the Hebrew is also a later translation from earlier languages and thus this is why the Massorah discusses LISTS of examples of translational errors in the Masoretic. Translation into HEBREW causes it's own set of problems


You said : The Hellenistic LXX, being a mere translation, is simply not going to be as good. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded :This is a strange statement since the Masoretic is also a “mere translation”. All versions have errors. Since No one can tell us what the autographs (originals) said then it is difficult for anyone to say that the errors in the Hebrew are fewer or of lessor consequence than the errors in the Greek


You said : Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded :This is an other silly claim. For example, What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145 that are included in both the dead sea scrolls and in the Septuagint? In this specific case, the septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic.

The Masoretic not only has many, many errors, but it has much that is missing from the earlier versions of the textual Narrative.


An example of scripture missing from the Hebrew Masoretic is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse.

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the translated Jewish text reads: Quote: "And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.

This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

Thus, when you say “Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew.” . (in post #38) This is patently absurd. “ALWAYS” is a very dangerous word to use.



You said :Yes, I'm saying that when the LXX replaced "husband," it was a mistranslation.
And THAT calls into question the "inerrancy" claims for the Christian scriptures. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded : I think that, IF you could say what the original word in the original texts the Jews used in the translation of the LXX, then you could say whether it was a correct translation or not. IF the original version the Jews used in creating the LXX read “turned away”, then the translation the Jews made in the LXX in this instance was correct.

Regarding your comment that some Christians inappropriately claim “inerrancy”, we are in total agreement. There are no ancient sacred texts of any size that we know of that do not have errors in them whether they be Jewish or Christian.


You said :"Since Rabbi O wants to address this, and he is much more qualified than I, I defer to him in this." (IndigoChild, Post #43)
I responded :This is fine. In any case, IF your point is that all early texts of any significant size have errors, we are quite in agreement. If you are trying to claim inerrancy for the Masoretic, then you are simply repeating the same silly mistake the Christian “inerrantists” are making.


In any Case IndigoChild, I hope your spiritual journey is a wonderful and good journey. I hope your life is good and full of wonderful insights.


Clear
σισιτζω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IndigoChild;
My response had to do with your various claims in post #38. For examples:

You said : "The Jewish version is in HEBREW. (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded : "R i g h t…… But the Masorectic version from the Hebrew is also a later translation from earlier languages and thus this is why the Massorah discusses LISTS of examples of translational errors in the Masoretic. Translation into HEBREW causes it's own set of problems

What evidence do you have for this? In other words, what actual manuscripts in earlier languages than Hebrew do the texts of the Tanakh exist? And by this, I don't mean just general ideas of stories, such as a flood story in Mesopotamian mythology. I mean the actual texts.

You said :

The Hellenistic LXX, being a mere translation, is simply not going to be as good. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I responded :This is a strange statement since the Masoretic is also a “mere translation”. All versions have errors. Since No one can tell us what the autographs (originals) said then it is difficult for anyone to say that the errors in the Hebrew are fewer or of lessor consequence than the errors in the Greek

Your statement is based on your flawed belief that the Hebrew text is a translation of earlier [non-existant] manuscripts in other earlier languages, a point you can't prove.

You said :

Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)

I responded :This is an other silly claim. For example, What about the missing nun line in the Massoretic Psalms 145 that are included in both the dead sea scrolls and in the Septuagint? In this specific case, the septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic.

It could very well be that the nun was lost from the Hebrew version, yet retained in the Greek. BUT IT COULD ALSO BE that for various reasons, the nun was deliberately omitted, and was simply added by a Greek editor who didn't like that. You can look up the reasons for such an omission if you google. This is why, despite having the Greek version for the verse, modern Hebrew versions don't simply translate the nun into Hebrew and include it.

The Masoretic not only has many, many errors, but it has much that is missing from the earlier versions of the textual Narrative.

I am certainly not saying the Hebrew texts are somehow magical or that they fell out of heaven. Although I maintain they are inspired of God, they were certainly written by men. A great many are what remains of earlier oral traditions that turn up in other forms in other cultures. They are quilts of texts stitched together by editors across time. There are historical and scientific errors and contradictions between books. Yet they form a canon that tell my people who we are and what God expects of us.

An example of scripture missing from the Hebrew Masoretic is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse.

OR, the DDS manuscript was a version that had edited in extra verses.

This doesn't mean it's worthless to study the DDS. I'm enthusiastic for scholarship--and I appreciate your obvious learning. But these extra passages in the DDS are not canon -- what is important to scholars are not always what is important to Rabbis.

You said :

Yes, I'm saying that when the LXX replaced "husband," it was a mistranslation.
And THAT calls into question the "inerrancy" claims for the Christian scriptures. . (IndigoChild, in post #38)
I responded :

I think that, IF you could say what the original word in the original texts the Jews used in the translation of the LXX, then you could say whether it was a correct translation or not. IF the original version the Jews used in creating the LXX read “turned away”, then the translation the Jews made in the LXX in this instance was correct.

Your argument is just not making sense to me. We have an older rendition -- Hebrew. It outweighs a translation.

I don't think you are going to convince me. Somehow your reasoning on this is simply so divergent that I'm simply not following it.

Regarding your comment that some Christians inappropriately claim “inerrancy”, we are in total agreement. There are no ancient sacred texts of any size that we know of that do not have errors in them whether they be Jewish or Christian.

Well I don't claim any version of anyone's texts are inerrant, so I agree with you here. I'm just saying that you go with the original language, as translations are de facto inferior.


BTW did Rabbi O ever reply?