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!
There was more than one version of the septuagint floating around in Paul's day.
OK, do you have any reason to think that it was the same as the MSS for Isaiah 25:8?
You don't listen.OK, do you have any reason to think that it was the same as the MSS for Isaiah 25:8?
If that was all there was to it there then wouldn't be a political agenda attached to the vowel pointing.
"And he shall be a wild *** of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him..."
"... he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man's hand shall be with him..."
Link
The prejudice against Ishmael is related to the Zionist ambition to acquire control of the land inherited by his descendants:
This post is yet another example of you sending replies unrelated to te conversation. You've opened up an entirely new conversation, a whole new and highly controversial subject. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.
The vowel pointing issue is related to the thread topic because the vowels add a layer of interpretation similar to what happens when the text is translated to English.
No one doubts what the vowels are. They have been accurately orally transmitted.
The first five books, aka the Torah, yes. These were done by scholars and the translation is pretty good.
I always try desperately to expose those biases that you speak of.
There's no political agenda there. This interpretation is attested to in sources older than Islam.If that was all there was to it there then wouldn't be a political agenda attached to the vowel pointing.
"And he shall be a wild *** of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him..."
"... he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man's hand shall be with him..."
Link
Straw man. Paul's prejudice against Ishmael was older than Islam, too.
You don't know what you're talking about. The interpretation of fruitful in Genesis 16:12 is consistent with a verse from the following chapter:
Well, your second sentence is true. Ishmael was not a good person according to the Tanach and the Tanach is somewhat prejudiced against people who aren't good.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "consistent". The word וְהִפְרֵיתִי comes from the root פרה not פרא. If you mean that the interpretation is consistent with that verse, well that's true. But you have to rely on a secondary spelling to create that consistency. Which brings us right back to what I wrote.
No, that's not a good example. In this case, the words are clearly not being used in the form of it's normal expression, it's following the formula defined by the three previous limbs, of "x b-x". That's not comparable to all the examples I've given you where the phrase stands on it's own without any verbs or previous formulas to modify it's meaning, as it does in the verse under discussion.
Where's your proof?
Comp. Gen. 21:9 with Gen. 26:8. Ishmael does the naughty things as a teenager and Sarah recognizes this as the Egyptian behavior he inherited from his mother. G-d agrees that Ishmael shouldn't be around to influence Isaac and has Abraham throw him out. And that's it. The only other times he's mentioned is to let us know that the blessings he received were fulfilled, that he lived among the rest of Abraham's children that were sent away from Isaac and that he married his daughter to Esau, another wonderful personality.
Indigochild I think the Greek translations of the Old Testament were well accepted by Jewish communities they never had a problem with that. As Greek was the universally accepted language of the time. That’s why archeologists find ancient Greek inscriptions in synagogues of that period as well, along with the Septuagint in various different forms. I think the major problem occurred when the Christian Faith came into being and suddenly you had many Christian Jews amongst the church. Actually they were the very first converts to the new found faith. So naturally they had a great interest with what the Old Testament revealed about the Messiah and what had just come to pass. I guess that didn’t sit well with Judaism of course . But before this it seems there was never any problem with the Old Testament being translated into another language. As to the Christians corrupting the Old Testament text I can only really remember there ever being one major controversy and that was with the interpretation of the virgin birth amongst Jews and Christians. And that being a passage aboutt the virgin birth, to whether it referred to a virgin or a young maiden. I think the Jews preferred young maiden and the Christians preferred virgin. But as far I know most translations of the bible are based apon the Masoretic text which is a translation from the 7th to 10th AD compiled by Jewish scholars and trusted and accepted by Jews and Christian alike. So I’m a little confused when you speak of Scholars that say Christians corrupted the Old Testament text . Perhaps you could explain some as I’m a little confused with what you mean.
I completely understand. If a person doesnt speak Hebrew, they are left dependent on finding the best translation they can. May I suggest you use a Jewish translation such as the Stone Tanakh? That way you will get a translation direct from the Hebrew without any Greek mucking things up.
Ignorant Jews who didn't speak or read Hebrew and who had Hellenized read the Septuagint. It was never accepted by the Jewish establishment. In Judaism, the Hebrew text IS the word of God. All translations are simply less than.
