Magus
Active Member
Why would he paraphrase Septuagint quotations to Sadducees, whom where the most traditional Jews at the time that rejected Hellenistic notions, there is no reason at all for a Native Judean to be quoting the Septuagint.
-
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!
The Bible declares that Jesus is God
- Thread starter Rick B
- Start date
Why would he paraphrase Septuagint quotations to Sadducees, whom where the most traditional Jews at the time that rejected Hellenistic notions, there is no reason at all for a Native Judean to be quoting the Septuagint.
Before I can reply I would need some examples of those paraphrases. And a demonstration that they are actually paraphrases.
Magus
Active Member
In Latin Grammar , Iove ( the ablative case of Iovis) according to Vox Latina, is pronounced ee-ah-w-eh (pronounce that ), I guess that the reason why the name became a taboo in the Latin speaking world of Christian Rome.
Is Jupiter ( Yahweh the Father), is Jesus, the son of Jupiter (God-Father) ? .
Last edited:
Magus
Active Member
It seems the poor translations in the Septuagint are deliberate, hence why i believe are a fraud, likely produced by the circle of the authors behind the New Testament.
Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and 'recovering of sight to the blind', to set at liberty them that are bruised.
Isaiah 61:1 (Great Isaiah Scroll translation)
The spirit of the LORD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, and to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners
The contest of Isaiah 61:1 is rather obvious, it relates to Ezra 1:2 ( Cyrus frees the Hebrews from captivity and Babylonian prisons) , does the original Isaiah 61:1 ( Dead Sea Scrolls) say anything about healing blind people, it seems Luke 4:18, a direct interpolation of Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1 and was deliberately mistranslated, along with 'Young Women' being translated as Virgin in the Septuagint to support the cult of Christ
Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and 'recovering of sight to the blind', to set at liberty them that are bruised.
Isaiah 61:1 (Great Isaiah Scroll translation)
The spirit of the LORD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, and to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners
The contest of Isaiah 61:1 is rather obvious, it relates to Ezra 1:2 ( Cyrus frees the Hebrews from captivity and Babylonian prisons) , does the original Isaiah 61:1 ( Dead Sea Scrolls) say anything about healing blind people, it seems Luke 4:18, a direct interpolation of Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1 and was deliberately mistranslated, along with 'Young Women' being translated as Virgin in the Septuagint to support the cult of Christ
kjw47
Well-Known Member
Rev 1:1--a revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him--definitely separate of the being called God ( giver)
Jesus teaches 100%( John 17:3) the one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is the ONLY TRUE GOD------
Paul backs that truth-1Cor 8:6-- trinity translations teach 2 different Gods.
The religion that came out of Rome put a trinity into translation. The Facts of Israelite history and the teachings of Jesus prove it a fact.
Sorry, but you can continue to quote all the scripture you like, but God has said nothing whatever about ME.
And for the record, it is impossible to "hate" that in which you don't even believe. Do you understand that? Are you capable of understanding it?
So no, I do not "hate God." I do, however, hate what the the idea of God in the heads of a great many people has wrought. It is the idea of God that led people to fly planes into the World Trade Center. It is the idea of God that has led the Vatican to insist on prohibiting the use of condoms and other means of contraception and sexual safety that has led, and continues to lead, millions upon millions to misery and premature death.
It was the idea of God that led Christians in Canada to tear hundreds of thousands of children away from their (native) families forever, in order to try to make them into something that they were not -- leading to dreadful unhappiness all round, and many, many preventable deaths.
My list can go on and on and on and on...and it's all REAL. Not like the stories you read in scripture which -- in my opinion -- is the result of too much imagination fueled by too little knowledge.
The interesting thing about that last part, by the way, is that knowledge keeps growing, and while that knowledge is capable of changing almost everything about our world, the one thing that seems to be immune to that knowledge is ------ scripture.
Sorry, no longer worth engaging. If you do not understand enough of how the English language to recognize the very large differences between the phrases "looks," "looks to" and "looks at," how are we ever going to have an intelligent dialogue. I can only do so when conversing with people who have some familiarity with the language we are using.
@Magus It is more than difficult to consider your opinion being plausible because of the date of the writing of the Septuagint.
"Most Septuagint specialists believe that the task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek occurred in stages, beginning with the Torah, the first five books of the OT, in the early third century BC. Other portions followed over the course of the next century. The reasons are coherent. Other Hellenistic Jewish texts from the third century BC cite the Septuagint, and other books within the Septuagint often repeat translation vocabulary found in the Torah....
While quotations of the LXX are as old as the third century BC, the oldest manuscript evidence for the LXX as a running text ranges from the second century BC to the first century AD. The material comes from Qumran as part of the Dead Sea Scroll discovery. Comparison of fragments of the LXX found at Qumran with other LXX manuscripts shows that, already at Qumran, alterations were made to either improve Greek style or bring the Greek into more literal conformity with what would become known later as the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT).
The LXX differs in many places from the traditional Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, known as the MT. There are divergences in words, verses, and passages; the order of verses or whole chapters; and the presence or absence of verses and sections. The question of why these differences exist is a difficult one, and is at the heart of the issue of the transmission of the Scriptures. There are basically two explanations.
First, in a number of differences textual critics can fairly easily discern that the variance is due to divergent manuscripts; that is, the Hebrew text from which the LXX was translated had different words than what is found in the MT. Two of the most well-known examples are Deuteronomy 32:8 and the book of 1 Samuel. The MT has “sons of Israel” and the LXX has “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8. Textual critics agree unanimously that the LXX is the correct text due to manuscript evidence (the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX here and elsewhere in Deuteronomy 32) and logical coherence.2 With respect to 1 Samuel, the Dead Sea Scrolls support the LXX in numerous instances against the MT, but not always.
Second, in many instances scholars feel that the most likely answer to a disagreement between the LXX and the MT is that the LXX translator had the text of the MT, or something nearly identical, and simply translated very freely or interpretively. Already in the early Church there was sensitivity to this phenomenon. The great textual scholar Origen (185–254 AD), well versed in Hebrew and Greek, undertook the task of “adjusting” the text of his LXX to the traditional Hebrew text. While well-meaning, the result of this amazing endeavor was that it made the task of parsing differences between the LXX and the MT even harder for modern scholars.
Both explanations for manuscript differences raise important considerations for how we look at our English Bibles today. The NT makes it clear that Jesus, the apostles, and the NT writers frequently used the LXX. Studies have determined that the NT, LXX and MT agree only about 20% of the time. Of the 80% where some disagreement is evident, the NT and MT agree less than 5% of the time. That means that the NT writers use the LXX most of the time when they quote the OT (Jobes and Silva 2000: 189–93).
The point to be drawn from this is not that the LXX is to be preferred over the MT as though it were more sacred or “original.” If that were the case, one would have to wonder why the NT writers ever followed the MT. The reverse is true as well. The MT deserves no a priori sacred status either. The MT is the direct result of a Jewish effort to create a standardized Hebrew text from existing Hebrew textual traditions, a task that occurred ca. 100 AD, in part in response to Christian apologetic use of the LXX.3 The real lesson that we learn from the transmission and use of the LXX is that the apostles—and Jesus himself—had no qualms about considering that translation the true Word of God. There is no evidence that Jesus or Paul or any other NT writer preferred a personal text over the texts available in synagogues, or that the hand-copied texts in synagogues had no variation. The fact that there were several non-identical Hebrew OT texts and Greek translations of those texts in circulation at the time generated no interest from Jesus and the apostles. What Providence had supplied and preserved was deemed completely sufficient. The early Church had the same attitude. Most Christians in the first four centuries of the Church could read only Greek. The LXX was their complete Bible. Respected Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21.2–3) and Tertullian (Apology 18) had a very high view of the LXX as being the Word of God. Rather than worry about following the LXX or MT as the only reliable source of the Scriptures, we ought to follow their example."
By Michael S. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Language at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He does translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic, cuneiform, and has also studied Akkadian and Sumerian. He is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software.
Says Unger's Bible Dictionary, about the origin of the Septuagint:
"1. The Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament enjoys the unique distinction of being the first book or rather library of books, for such it is, known to be translated into another language. This translation is called the Septuagint and was made IN THE THIRD AND SECOND CENTURIES B.C. During this period the entire Hebrew Bible was put into the Greek language. It was in the reign of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS (285-246 B.C.) that the Pentateuch was put into the Greek tongue . . . . Certainly by the middle of the second century B.C. the Old Testament was COMPLETELY RENDERED IN GREEK. The name Septuagint was eventually applied to the entire Greek Old Testament" (p. 1147).
The dean of evangelical Biblical scholars, F. F. Bruce, says in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture concerning the Septuagint:
"The Greek translation of the scriptures was made available from time to time in the third and second centuries B.C. (say during the century 250-150 B.C.). The law, comprising the five books of Moses, was the first part of the scriptures to appear in a Greek version; the reading of the law was essential to synagogue worship, and it was important that what was read should be intelligible to the congregation" (pp. 43-44).
It should be perfectly clear that there is no truth whatsoever in the claim of our critic who attempts to prove that the Septuagint is a "fraud" and a "forgery" and " completely corrupt"!
The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, under the heading "Septuagint," tells us about the character of the Septuagint, which our critic finds "utterly corrupt." Says this multi-volume authority:
"The Greek OT as it exists today is a composite book, the work of various translators of varied ability who worked at different times. The WHOLE OT WAS PROBABLY COMPLETE BY THE MIDDLE, CERTAINLY BY THE END, OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. It is generally held that the provenance of all of them was Egypt . . . The Pentateuch was undoubtedly translated first, probably during the reign of Philadelphus" (volume 4, p. 276).
Peloubet's Bible Dictionary tells us further, about the Septuagint:
"The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowledge of Hebrew than their brethren in Palestine; their familiar language was Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers soon after the time of Alexander, and under the early Ptolemies. They would naturally follow the same practice as the Jews in Palestine; and hence would arise in time an entire Greek version. The commonly received story respecting its origin is contained in an extant letter ascribed to Aristeas . . . This is the story which probably gave to the version the title of the Septuagint, and which has been repeated in various forms by the Christian writers. But it is now generally admitted that the letter is spurious, and is probably the fabrication of an Alexandrian Jews shortly before the Christian era. STILL, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THERE WAS A BASIS OF FACT for the fiction; on three points of the story there is no material difference of opinion, and they are CONFIRMED by the study of the version itself: -- 1. The version was made at Alexandria. 2. It was begun in the TIME OF THE EARLY PTOLEMIES, about 280 B.C. 3. The law (i.e., the Pentateuch) alone was translated at first. The Septuagint version was HIGHLY ESTEEMED BY THE HELLENISTIC JEWS BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST. Because of the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world the Greek translation of their Scriptures was AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PREPARING THE WAY FOR CHRIST'S COMING. Its existence in a language which could be read throughout the world made even the Gentiles familiar with the beliefs of the Jews, and their wonderful history which would of course include the guiding Providence of God, and his promise of a Saviour to come, throughout the nations. No less wide was the influence of the Septuagint in the spread of the GOSPEL. For a long period the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the far larger part of the Christian Church" (p. 604).
The New Bible Dictionary tells us more about the Septuagint. It corroborates the account of Peloubet, and other scholars, and provides additional details for us to consider. As to the origin of the Septuagint, it declares:
"1. ORIGINS. Its precise origins are still debated. A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem . . . . The same story is told WITH VARIATIONS by Josephus [indicating that Josephus the historian also had OTHER SOURCES for his detailed version of the event], but later writers embellish it with miraculous details. A Jewish priest ARISTOBULUS, who lived in the 2nd century B.C., is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius as stating that while portions relating to Hebrew history had been translated into Greek previously, THE ENTIRE LAW WAS TRANSLATED IN THE REIGN OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS . . ." (p. 1258).
This same authority describes the value of the Septuagint by pointing out:
"But in numerous places the unrevised LXX text disagrees with the MT in meaning, order, and content; and this is important, since the LXX was, until recently, the earliest witness to the Old Testament text. No Hebrew MS, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was earlier than the late 9th century A.D. Moreover, these Hebrew MSS all contained the text as edited by the Masoretes, whereas the LXX (i.e., before the main revisions) witness to a pre-Masoretic text. Where it differs from the MT, the LXX is in some places evidently inferior, in other places just as clearly superior; sometimes it is supported by the Samaritan text or one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These latter occasionally agree with the LXX, where formerly we thought that the LXX was merely a loose paraphrase, unauthorized by any Hebrew . . ." (p. 1260). Hope of Israel Ministries
This is what is meant by offering back-up support to one's assertions.[/QUOTE]
"Most Septuagint specialists believe that the task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek occurred in stages, beginning with the Torah, the first five books of the OT, in the early third century BC. Other portions followed over the course of the next century. The reasons are coherent. Other Hellenistic Jewish texts from the third century BC cite the Septuagint, and other books within the Septuagint often repeat translation vocabulary found in the Torah....
While quotations of the LXX are as old as the third century BC, the oldest manuscript evidence for the LXX as a running text ranges from the second century BC to the first century AD. The material comes from Qumran as part of the Dead Sea Scroll discovery. Comparison of fragments of the LXX found at Qumran with other LXX manuscripts shows that, already at Qumran, alterations were made to either improve Greek style or bring the Greek into more literal conformity with what would become known later as the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT).
The LXX differs in many places from the traditional Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, known as the MT. There are divergences in words, verses, and passages; the order of verses or whole chapters; and the presence or absence of verses and sections. The question of why these differences exist is a difficult one, and is at the heart of the issue of the transmission of the Scriptures. There are basically two explanations.
First, in a number of differences textual critics can fairly easily discern that the variance is due to divergent manuscripts; that is, the Hebrew text from which the LXX was translated had different words than what is found in the MT. Two of the most well-known examples are Deuteronomy 32:8 and the book of 1 Samuel. The MT has “sons of Israel” and the LXX has “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8. Textual critics agree unanimously that the LXX is the correct text due to manuscript evidence (the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX here and elsewhere in Deuteronomy 32) and logical coherence.2 With respect to 1 Samuel, the Dead Sea Scrolls support the LXX in numerous instances against the MT, but not always.
Second, in many instances scholars feel that the most likely answer to a disagreement between the LXX and the MT is that the LXX translator had the text of the MT, or something nearly identical, and simply translated very freely or interpretively. Already in the early Church there was sensitivity to this phenomenon. The great textual scholar Origen (185–254 AD), well versed in Hebrew and Greek, undertook the task of “adjusting” the text of his LXX to the traditional Hebrew text. While well-meaning, the result of this amazing endeavor was that it made the task of parsing differences between the LXX and the MT even harder for modern scholars.
Both explanations for manuscript differences raise important considerations for how we look at our English Bibles today. The NT makes it clear that Jesus, the apostles, and the NT writers frequently used the LXX. Studies have determined that the NT, LXX and MT agree only about 20% of the time. Of the 80% where some disagreement is evident, the NT and MT agree less than 5% of the time. That means that the NT writers use the LXX most of the time when they quote the OT (Jobes and Silva 2000: 189–93).
The point to be drawn from this is not that the LXX is to be preferred over the MT as though it were more sacred or “original.” If that were the case, one would have to wonder why the NT writers ever followed the MT. The reverse is true as well. The MT deserves no a priori sacred status either. The MT is the direct result of a Jewish effort to create a standardized Hebrew text from existing Hebrew textual traditions, a task that occurred ca. 100 AD, in part in response to Christian apologetic use of the LXX.3 The real lesson that we learn from the transmission and use of the LXX is that the apostles—and Jesus himself—had no qualms about considering that translation the true Word of God. There is no evidence that Jesus or Paul or any other NT writer preferred a personal text over the texts available in synagogues, or that the hand-copied texts in synagogues had no variation. The fact that there were several non-identical Hebrew OT texts and Greek translations of those texts in circulation at the time generated no interest from Jesus and the apostles. What Providence had supplied and preserved was deemed completely sufficient. The early Church had the same attitude. Most Christians in the first four centuries of the Church could read only Greek. The LXX was their complete Bible. Respected Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21.2–3) and Tertullian (Apology 18) had a very high view of the LXX as being the Word of God. Rather than worry about following the LXX or MT as the only reliable source of the Scriptures, we ought to follow their example."
By Michael S. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Language at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He does translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic, cuneiform, and has also studied Akkadian and Sumerian. He is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software.
Says Unger's Bible Dictionary, about the origin of the Septuagint:
"1. The Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament enjoys the unique distinction of being the first book or rather library of books, for such it is, known to be translated into another language. This translation is called the Septuagint and was made IN THE THIRD AND SECOND CENTURIES B.C. During this period the entire Hebrew Bible was put into the Greek language. It was in the reign of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS (285-246 B.C.) that the Pentateuch was put into the Greek tongue . . . . Certainly by the middle of the second century B.C. the Old Testament was COMPLETELY RENDERED IN GREEK. The name Septuagint was eventually applied to the entire Greek Old Testament" (p. 1147).
The dean of evangelical Biblical scholars, F. F. Bruce, says in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture concerning the Septuagint:
"The Greek translation of the scriptures was made available from time to time in the third and second centuries B.C. (say during the century 250-150 B.C.). The law, comprising the five books of Moses, was the first part of the scriptures to appear in a Greek version; the reading of the law was essential to synagogue worship, and it was important that what was read should be intelligible to the congregation" (pp. 43-44).
It should be perfectly clear that there is no truth whatsoever in the claim of our critic who attempts to prove that the Septuagint is a "fraud" and a "forgery" and " completely corrupt"!
The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, under the heading "Septuagint," tells us about the character of the Septuagint, which our critic finds "utterly corrupt." Says this multi-volume authority:
"The Greek OT as it exists today is a composite book, the work of various translators of varied ability who worked at different times. The WHOLE OT WAS PROBABLY COMPLETE BY THE MIDDLE, CERTAINLY BY THE END, OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. It is generally held that the provenance of all of them was Egypt . . . The Pentateuch was undoubtedly translated first, probably during the reign of Philadelphus" (volume 4, p. 276).
Peloubet's Bible Dictionary tells us further, about the Septuagint:
"The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowledge of Hebrew than their brethren in Palestine; their familiar language was Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers soon after the time of Alexander, and under the early Ptolemies. They would naturally follow the same practice as the Jews in Palestine; and hence would arise in time an entire Greek version. The commonly received story respecting its origin is contained in an extant letter ascribed to Aristeas . . . This is the story which probably gave to the version the title of the Septuagint, and which has been repeated in various forms by the Christian writers. But it is now generally admitted that the letter is spurious, and is probably the fabrication of an Alexandrian Jews shortly before the Christian era. STILL, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THERE WAS A BASIS OF FACT for the fiction; on three points of the story there is no material difference of opinion, and they are CONFIRMED by the study of the version itself: -- 1. The version was made at Alexandria. 2. It was begun in the TIME OF THE EARLY PTOLEMIES, about 280 B.C. 3. The law (i.e., the Pentateuch) alone was translated at first. The Septuagint version was HIGHLY ESTEEMED BY THE HELLENISTIC JEWS BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST. Because of the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world the Greek translation of their Scriptures was AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PREPARING THE WAY FOR CHRIST'S COMING. Its existence in a language which could be read throughout the world made even the Gentiles familiar with the beliefs of the Jews, and their wonderful history which would of course include the guiding Providence of God, and his promise of a Saviour to come, throughout the nations. No less wide was the influence of the Septuagint in the spread of the GOSPEL. For a long period the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the far larger part of the Christian Church" (p. 604).
The New Bible Dictionary tells us more about the Septuagint. It corroborates the account of Peloubet, and other scholars, and provides additional details for us to consider. As to the origin of the Septuagint, it declares:
"1. ORIGINS. Its precise origins are still debated. A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem . . . . The same story is told WITH VARIATIONS by Josephus [indicating that Josephus the historian also had OTHER SOURCES for his detailed version of the event], but later writers embellish it with miraculous details. A Jewish priest ARISTOBULUS, who lived in the 2nd century B.C., is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius as stating that while portions relating to Hebrew history had been translated into Greek previously, THE ENTIRE LAW WAS TRANSLATED IN THE REIGN OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS . . ." (p. 1258).
This same authority describes the value of the Septuagint by pointing out:
"But in numerous places the unrevised LXX text disagrees with the MT in meaning, order, and content; and this is important, since the LXX was, until recently, the earliest witness to the Old Testament text. No Hebrew MS, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was earlier than the late 9th century A.D. Moreover, these Hebrew MSS all contained the text as edited by the Masoretes, whereas the LXX (i.e., before the main revisions) witness to a pre-Masoretic text. Where it differs from the MT, the LXX is in some places evidently inferior, in other places just as clearly superior; sometimes it is supported by the Samaritan text or one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These latter occasionally agree with the LXX, where formerly we thought that the LXX was merely a loose paraphrase, unauthorized by any Hebrew . . ." (p. 1260). Hope of Israel Ministries
This is what is meant by offering back-up support to one's assertions.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
I have two questions regarding the New World Translation if you are willing. I have the 1984 revised 2006 printed edition. Below is quoted from the 2013 revision.
Psalm 102:25: Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.+
26 They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
27 But you are the same, and your years will never end.+
28 The children of your servants will dwell securely,
And their offspring will be firmly established before you.”
My questions are: Who is the subject being described here? And what does this tell us about him?
Last edited:
For a Christian the Bible is their ultimate authority. It is God’s revelation. The Word of truth. It is that Word of God that clearly rendered the judgment regarding the atheistic worldview that I quoted. So to question my capability to understand what is in your thinking is moot. I do understand, however, because you have made it painfully obvious, that you deny that "all Scripture is breathed out by God" and especially "don't like" the verdict that is written in God’s Word against unbelievers. BTW how can you know that God has said nothing about you if, according to you, there is no God that can say anything? Self-contradictory? Your certainty about what God says and your certainty that that God doesn't exist is self-refuting. It appears that you have revealed that the Scriptures are true when it says that the unbeliever suppresses that innate knowledge that God does exist. But sometimes they inadvertently let it out.
But while there is life there is hope.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It seems that you didn't fully read what I had posted, with one item you seem to have missed is the later writings of the Jesus events written in Koine Greek versus Hebrew or Aramaic. The gospels were written to anyone interested but likely more for Jews and Gentiles in the diasporah since the church was having difficulty convincing Jews living in eretz Israel to convert. IOW, Jesus likely paraphrased the Jerusalem text but that got converted later into Greek in the writing of the Septuagint.
Secondly, the Jesus movement was basically a Pharisee one, and a very liberal one at that, plus his attack on the Temple priesthood wouldn't likely attract Sadducees.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But that still isn't "Jehovah" as it would be spelled in English nor pronounced that way in Hebrew. On top of that, the JW's virtually ignore that there are many other names for God as found in the Tanakh, so why should they get upset.
Who's talking about Jupiter?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Septuagint was started roughly 300 years and finished about 130 years before Jesus was even born.
Secondly, going from one language to another is always a challenge. My wife is from Italy, and some words and phrases simply don't translate well into English.
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
I think you are confusing other Bibles with your own. Your translation of the Bible teaches "2" Gods, not other translations.
NWT (John 1:1-3) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
John 1:1 (ESV Strong's) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Magus
Active Member
There was no 'Eretz Israel' in the First century, there was Iudaea ( Roman Province) , Israel is a pseudonym for 'Coele-Syria' .
The Septuagint is made up of Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus manuscripts written 300 years AFTER Jesus and the product of Origen, the Letter of Aristeas , first mentioned in Josephus, but the earliest manuscripts of Josephus date to the 9th-10th century in the Codex Vaticanus, back to Origen (so happen to be born in Alexandria)
Seventy-two (or Seventy) interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria (where we find Origen) , oddly resembling Luke 10:1, After this the Lord appointed seventy-two ( or Seventy),
.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Eretz-Israel" simply means "the land of Israel", which is a reference to the general location of the "Holy Land". As far as the name "Israel" is concerned: Israel is a Biblical given name. The patriarch Jacob was given the name Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl; "Triumphant with God", "who prevails with God"[3]) after he wrestled with an "angel" (Genesis 32:28 and 35:10)... Jacob's descendants came to be known as the Israelites, eventually forming the tribes of Israel and ultimately the kingdom of Israel, whence came the name of modern-day State of Israel. -- Israel (name) - Wikipedia
I was not talking about the later additions, only the original manuscripts.
I find no reason to believe as such, especially since no such evidence indicates that.
Magus
Active Member
Septuagint is not an original manuscript, the earliest date is the 3rd Century CE , Where are these 'original' manuscripts, if they did exist, likely burnt by the Septuagint forgers.
There was no Kingdom of Israel, Ancient Greek historians don't mention it at all, Archaeologically have different names, Bit-Omri ( Gomorrah ) and Samaria , even the Mesha Kurkh monolith, that people assume to be the earliest mention of Israel, reads 'sir-il-la-a-a ' ( Syria ), even the Babylonian chronicle puts 'Judea' in a different geography to Roman Judea. "marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah".
WOW! Talk about having your head buried in the sand.
Magus
Active Member
You mean your head is buried in the Bible, believe it to be literally true without a shred of evidence , if Archaeology puts Israel & Judea in a different geography, that's not very good for Zionism isn't it, just more lies & propaganda.