OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 05:12:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  (Read 19012 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« on: August 12, 2010, 04:30:55 PM »

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,



In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

The people rebelled against God and Moses, dismissing even their rescue from Egypt. At first read it seem Aaron joined them, but it is clear from vvs 4-6 that he did not, rather he sought to turn them back to God and Moses, by making an image of YHWH. This interpretation is confirmed in the NT by Paul who expands this event to encompass all idolatry:


1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, "Rise up and make us gods that shall go before us. As for Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.
2. Aaron then said to them, "Remove the golden earrings in the ears of your wives and daughters and bring them to me."
3. So all the people removed the golden earrings in their ears, and brought them to Aaron.
4.He received them from their hands; and he fashioned them win an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
5. So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. Aaron then made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord."
6. Thus he rose early the next day and offered whole burnt offerings and peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

7. But the Lord said to Moses, "God quickly! Get down from here! For your people whom you brought  out of the land of Egypt are transgressing the law.
8. They turned aside quickly from the way I commanded them. They made themselves a calf and are worshiping and sacrificing to it, and are saying, 'These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt.'-Orthodox Study Bible

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
 (Rom 1:20-23 NKJ)


Therefore the LXX cannot be inspired translation, if it were it would have used the singular THEOS in these verses.

While many versions also translate it as plural, the following render it "God" singular: the New King James, Bible in Basic English, Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish Publication Society Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Darby Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard, New International Reader's Version, New Jerusalem Bible, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (all italics).
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:45:47 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2010, 04:36:39 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2010, 04:46:36 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:50:47 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2010, 04:54:25 PM »

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:54:55 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2010, 04:59:17 PM »

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."

The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11; "Cattles" Job 40:14; Keys, Mt 16:19.

One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 05:16:25 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2010, 05:16:05 PM »


The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2010, 05:39:05 PM »


The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2010, 05:45:12 PM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2010, 05:48:11 PM »


The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old
Testament.

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the
parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in
some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

Nothing could be further from the trurh.

The Septuagint is NOT a Christian translation. It is a Jewish translation.

It became the gift of the Jewish Temple to the Christian Church. The
Christians of the apostolic era received it from the Jews and thereafter
knew no other. It remains the one canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox
Church.

The Septuagint was a translation project approved by the Temple authorities
in the centuries before Christ. Israel provided the best and most learned of
its scholars (said to be 70 in all, hence its name of Septuagint) to
undertake the translation from Hebrew into Greek. Every line was checked
upon translation. Every Jewish scholar working on the translation critically
reviewed everything which some other scholar had translated into Greek.

The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up
until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.
The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books.
It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

It also represents the Temple's deliberate choice of correct verses wherever
there were conflicting variants. As a specific example, the choice of
"virgin-parthenos" in Isaiah was the choice of the Jewish translators.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish
Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the
Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the
Sanhedrin.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003



« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2010, 05:49:41 PM »

It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 05:50:55 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2010, 05:52:11 PM »

Dear Alfred,
 
When it comes to a choice between the Septuagint which was used by the writers of the New Testament and other versions, then I go with the Apostles.  They read the Septuagint, they quoted from it, they used it in their missionary work to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ.   It was because they were so successful with this that the Jews at Jamnia in 90 AD forbade the use of the Septuagint (their own creation!!)   The early Christian Church did not know any other Old Testament; they knew only the Septuagint. 
 
The Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles are sealed with the inspirational mark of the Holy Spirit.  In comparison to this, decisions against the choice of the Spirit made in Western Europe 1600 years later carry no attraction. Attempts, 1600 years after the fact, to displace the Old Testament used by the Apostles and their succesors seem to me like an attack on the work of God.
 
Fr Ambrose
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2010, 05:54:38 PM »


In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2010, 06:14:14 PM »

Here's some legwork as far as original sources and translations are concerned.

Exodus 32:4

καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου Ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
(Septuagint)

וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַֽיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
(Masoretic Text)

And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(King James Version)

He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."
(New American Standard Bible)

He received them from their hand; and he fashioned them with an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "There are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
(St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint)
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2010, 06:24:04 PM »

The whole argument for the inspiration of one, singular text and version of that text is a moot point. It doesn't matter it it's the Septuagint, the pre-Masoretic, or the New Testament, there is no one version  of either in the original manuscript form. What we have today is a compilation. The ancient manuscripts were written at various places and times by several authors. The oldest manuscripts we have are copies and collections of earlier manuscripts.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2010, 06:28:20 PM »

It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.

Poor Alfred is a man spiritually deluded, a Church of one, with only his own whim to guide him, thus he results to sniping here and there in an attempt to justify his spiritual insanity. His non-sensical arguments are backed by what he calls evidence, but they are, rather, bits and pieces shaved from their original context and marinated in his own heresy, which denies the true incarnation of the Word of God.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2010, 06:43:48 PM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.

Moreover, using 85% of the time a text which Mr. Persson, two millenia later, says that they didn't believe was inspired. Moreover, since they quote the LXX's changes, that would mean they furthered the corruption. And thereby corrupted the NT, which therefore can't be inspired itself.

Have you been circumcized Mr. Persson?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2010, 07:22:47 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

You picked one text in the hopes that your prooftexting would not be corrected by context.

Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Quote
Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

If you could read the Hebrew, you would see that is not likely: the verse has the plural "gods" and also "these" and "they brought."  The plural of majesty usually, with increasing regularity have singular agreement.

The Aramaic Targums have the plural, though Aramaic doesn't have a plural of majesty.
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showtargum.cgi

Quote
Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible,

So, when did Aaron tell you that? Do you have tea with him regularly?  Joseph Smith experience?



Quote
hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
LOL. So Perssonism does "translate" the Bible to fit its agenda, like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 07:23:56 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2010, 07:40:13 PM »

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."
according to the Spirit guiding them.

Quote
The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

Quote
to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

Quote
"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Quote
Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

Quote
One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

Quote
The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.


move away from the hammer.

Quote
If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2010, 07:53:54 PM »

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2010, 08:13:05 PM »


In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

You missed my point. The lxx is translating the Hebrew plural for "gods" with the Greek plural for "gods", so in that sense is literal.

BUT the Hebrew uses the plural "gods" to also refer to the One true God, context alone determines which is meant. The plural is a "plural of majesty" when the Hebrew "gods" refers to "God."

The context of Exodus indicates "gods" is referring to the one true God, the image represented Him, not foreign deities:

They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

NKJ  Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

 2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"
 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD."
 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
 (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

No doubt Aaron thought he did good, stopped the rebellion, and restored both Moses and God to authority.

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

 7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'"
 (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)


So the Hebrew and Greek lxx read the same, but shouldn't. If it was inspired the lxx should read as the NKJ translates, rendering "gods" as "god" so readers would have a clearer sense of what is happening.

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 08:24:56 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2010, 08:26:05 PM »

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2010, 08:36:40 PM »

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

##

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT), not "her husband's brother"

asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)

 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

##

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)


##

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 08:57:37 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2010, 08:50:02 PM »

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2010, 09:03:30 PM »

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2010, 09:07:40 PM »

nt
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:08:10 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2010, 09:25:38 PM »

Actually, I think vowel-pointing hadn't been invented when Christ was on Earth, and it certainly wouldn't have appeared in any of the scrolls available to Him.  OTOH, Greek did have accent marks and the iota subscript, rather a bit more than the marks one finds on a traditional Hebrew text of the first century.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2010, 09:42:04 PM »


I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  Grin



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:43:46 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2010, 09:51:32 PM »


I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  Grin



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2010, 09:56:34 PM »


I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  Grin



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2010, 10:47:03 PM »

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

You said it.

Just to be sure...

Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Acts 13:14-15
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 17:1-2
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:16-17
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Acts 18:1,4
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

The synagogue in Ephesus is mentioned multiple times between Chapters 18 and 19 in Acts.

These greek speaking synagogues would have used greek for their Scripture. Paul used their Scripture when at a synagogue.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2010, 10:49:40 PM »

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2010, 10:54:31 PM »

One more thing.

2Tim 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul told Timothy that the Scripture he read as a child were inspired of God.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Which would have been greek.

There you have it, proven from the NT, the LXX is divinely inspired.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2010, 10:58:29 PM »

One more person who quoted from the LXX.

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2010, 11:55:26 PM »

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.

Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 11:57:34 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2010, 11:56:06 PM »

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:

Exodus 33:1 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ λαὸς ὅτι κεχρόνικεν μωυσῆς καταβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους συνέστη ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ ααρων καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν ὁ γὰρ μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ αἰγύπτου οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ
וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי־בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן־הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל־אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה־לָנוּ
אֱלֹהִים
 אֲשֶׁר
 יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי־זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה־הָיָה לֹו׃

"make us gods who will go before us" It is pluarl agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, confomring to the LXX.

32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

32:8 repeats 32:4.

32:11 καὶ ἐδεήθη μωυσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἵνα τί κύριε θυμοῖ ὀργῇ εἰς τὸν λαόν σου οὓς ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐν ἰσχύι μεγάλῃ καὶ ἐν τῷ βραχίονί σου τῷ ὑψηλῷ
וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה

אֱלֹהָיו
  בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֹוצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדֹול וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה׃וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ

"His God, and said "O Lord why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought" It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty, but the presence of "LORD" can by a stretch be said to determine agreement.

32:23 repeats the same as 32:4.

32:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ισραηλ θέσθε ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ῥομφαίαν ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν καὶ διέλθατε καὶ ἀνακάμψατε ἀπὸ πύλης ἐπὶ πύλην διὰ τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ ἀποκτείνατε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἔγγιστα αὐτοῦ
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה־
אָמַר
יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵי
ִישְׂרָאֵל
שִׂימוּ אִישׁ־חַרְבֹּו עַל־יְרֵכֹו עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ־אֶת־אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קְרֹבֹו׃

"says the LORD the God..." repeats the same 32:11

32:31 ὑπέστρεψεν δὲ μωυσῆς πρὸς κύριον καὶ εἶπεν δέομαι κύριε ἡμάρτηκεν ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς θεοὺς χρυσοῦς
וַיָּשָׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם
 אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב
"god of gold." It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX

Before chapter 32, in 29:46 καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐπικληθῆναι αὐτοῖς καὶ θεὸς εἶναι αὐτῶν
ls)
וְיָדְעוּ כִּי
 אֲנִי
 יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵיהֶם
 אֲשֶׁר
 הֹוצֵאתִי
 אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם
 לְשָׁכְנִי
 בְתֹוכָם
 אֲנִי יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵיהֶם׃

"I am the LORD their God who brought them out of Egypt that I may dwell among them I am the LORD their God. repeats the grammar of 32:11.

But in 34:14 οὐ γὰρ μὴ προσκυνήσητε θεῷ ἑτέρῳ ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ζηλωτὸν ὄνομα θεὸς ζηλωτής ἐστιν
כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה
 לְאֵל אַחֵר
 כִּי יְהוָה קַנָּא שְׁמֹו
 אֵל קַנָּא הוּא׃
"another god, for the LORD is a jealous God." Singular throughout in the Hebrew, conforming to the LXX

And in 24:10 καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ἐκεῖ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ισραηλ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔργον πλίνθου σαπφείρου καὶ ὥσπερ εἶδος στερεώματος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῇ καθαριότητι
וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת
 אֱלֹהֵי
 יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת
 רַגְלָיו
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃
"They saw (!) the God of Israel and under His feet..." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty

24:11 καὶ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ ισραηλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἷς καὶ ὤφθησαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον
וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא
 שָׁלַח יָדֹו
וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת־
הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ׃
"He did not stretch His hand...and they saw God (!)." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty.

we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.


move away from the hammer.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 12:00:36 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2010, 12:02:57 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2010, 12:05:55 AM »


I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  Grin



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?


ICXC NIKA

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2010, 12:07:53 AM »

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."
according to the Spirit guiding them.

Quote
The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

Quote
to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

Quote
"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Quote
Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

Quote
One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

Quote
The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.


move away from the hammer.

Quote
If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here. Roll Eyes


Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2010, 12:08:52 AM »

Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2010, 12:19:12 AM »

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2010, 12:28:09 AM »

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth,

Physician, heal thyself.

Quote
declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6

Quote
That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Then stop trying to sneak in the old leaven of the Pharisees, and taking out the Anagignoskomena of Christ's canon.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. Rev.22:18-9.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 12:33:22 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2010, 12:37:11 AM »

Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.
Yes, I know Hebrew. Do you? As shown in the post above
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.
But since there's a commercial:

it seems not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2010, 12:38:58 AM »

Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?
That the two are connected seems to be gnawing at him, though he tried to evade it in the other thread.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,613


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2010, 12:40:18 AM »

Quote
Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.

Complete nonsense. Plural of majesty is found in a large number of languages, including ancient and modern forms of Greek. To say that it does not, or did not exist, in pre-modern forms of Greek is laughable. Even modern, vernacular Greek retains the formal plural.

Modern English is very much in a minority in that it has got rid of its formal plural, though it did exist in earlier forms of the language.

BTW, phenomena is the plural of phenomenon. With all the grand pronouncements about your great knowledge you've made here over a number of threads, grammatical sloppiness is not a good look. Coupled with your persistent evasion of answering simple questions, dodging the topics at hand, and comprehensively ignoring the wealth of scriptural, historical, liturgical and practical evidence brought against your mistaken assertions, it only serves to shred your credibility further among us here.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2010, 12:43:22 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2010, 12:55:51 AM »

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".

Yes, it seems that Mr. Persson is slipping, and betrayed the sola scriptura mantra "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness." It seems Persson qualifies that, translated it a la New World Translation "All scripture judged by one man over two thousand years after the fact as translated correctly i.e. in conformity to his views, is given by inspiration...."

Btw, Joseph Smith Jr. believed the same thing:
Quote
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God

Do you have your own Urim and Thurim to translate the Bible, Mr. Persson? I have to depend on Gensenius and Bauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2010, 01:09:42 AM »


I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  Grin



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

So St. Timothy was reading an uninspired Bible, or is St. Paul a liar?


Quote
I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

Are you still using this rule on what is "apostolic"?
Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.

President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.


Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.

Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow. Roll Eyes
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=10741
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_Lutheran#.22Quia.22_versus_.22Quatenus.22_subscription

Quia means he held, and required, the belief that the Book of Concord did not contradict Scripture, and because ("quia") of that, one must subcribe to its teachings.
Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concord
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/385

I used to belong to the "Quatenus" Lutherans, who believe in the Book of Concord insofar as ("quatenus") it doesn't contradict scripture.  Taking that to its logical conclusion, I left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, as did Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the BoC's translators (in addition to being a renowned Church historian).

Some of the Vatican's bishops subscribed to the Book of Concord's promulgation, and bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland subcribe quia to the Book of Concord, but, besides the obvious problems of these "bishops" being installed outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since the BoC contains the filioque, it obviously contradicts the scripture of Apostolic Tradition, as condemned by the Council of Constanitnople IV, and these bishops therefore fall under the same condemnation.  The EP comdemned the heart of the BoC, the Augsburg Confession, as heresy, and the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus, accepted at the Synod of Jerusalem condemned several articles that the Lutherans held in common with the Calvinists (and Perssonism, it seems) as heresy.

That being so, your authority claims that the Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in the filioque (explicitely taught by the BoC, and condemned accordingly by the Orthodox) as the Spirit proceeding from Christ, claiming that through the Word of the Apostles and clinging to the filioque as the Word of the Apostles  Since we reject the filioque (and other heresies in the BoC), your authority, President Pieper, tells you in your citation Rom. 16:17: “Avoid [us],” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" e.g. the filioque.

So how is your walking disorderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles, Apostolic? Waking in the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, Apostolic?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2010, 01:17:11 AM »

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

Evangelicals threw a massive fit after the publication of the RSV OT. Part of the reason is that the translators "de-Christed" the Old Testament, but much of their fury was aimed at those who had challenged the divine authority of the Masoretic Text by littering the revision with passages attested by the Vulgate, LXX, the Syriac etc... Yet even translations such as the NIV couldn't help themselves in resorting to other ancient versions to correct perceived defects in the text. The ESV also (sometimes blindly) scrubbed clean many LXX readings in the RSV OT, even one reading attested to by the Apostle Paul.

Why do they hate the pre-MT texts so much? Is it a sin to use them?

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:17:49 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2010, 01:25:23 AM »

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr  3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved, 
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, 
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord? 
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed 
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38




Instances where the New Testament quotes the Masoretic:

He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19
Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8

Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15

They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,613


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2010, 01:28:40 AM »

Alfred, allow me to point out the following to you:

1. Have you missed the point that the Hebrew version of the OT produced by the Masoretes is a good 1000 years younger than the LXX, which even Jewish scholars who lived in the period contemporary to its translation into Greek, regarded as an authoritative and correct text? So where on earth do you get this incomprehensible notion that the LXX led to "changes" in the OT? It was the Masoretes who changed the OT to suit ther own ends, such as changing references which could lead people to realise that the OT prophecies were indeed linked to Jesus Christ. The incarnational prophecies in Isaiah are particularly significant.

2. What say you regarding the persistent referencing of the LXX, not the Masoretic, not just by the apostles, but of Christ Himself, in the New Testament?

3. Do you have any intention of confronting the wealth of evidence so many of us have supplied against you?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:30:36 AM by LBK » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2010, 01:43:18 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language, it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2010, 01:52:09 AM »

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

You'd be interested in "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, by Gleason L. Archer & G.C. Chirichigno (Moody Press, Chicago)

It analyzes the quotes in parallel columns, Categorizing them A-F.
Category A: Is where the Masoretic, LXX and NT all agree.
B: Where the NT follows the LXX
C: Where the NT follows the Masoretic against the LXX (that's where I was getting my examples)
D: Where the NT follows the LXX against the Masoretic
E:Where neither text is followed, and context ignored.
F: Allusions to OT texts.

It boils down to faith in God. But my faith is not a blind faith, its consistent with facts. I only point out the Orthodox claims for the LXX are impossible as the apostles themselves don't follow them. They clearly did not view the LXX text as the text, they go against it often enough to show they sometimes checked the Hebrew beneath the Greek.

But its certainly a valuable translation, and I do consider its readings when studying difficult texts, and often I find it explains what the Hebrew meant to the ancients. But I believe Christ 100%, and therefore as the LXX is a translation, Christ's words apply to the Hebrew...and that means the Massoretic has all Christ said it would have, every meaningful word, no matter how small...every idea God wants us to know, regardless how insignificant.

NKJ  Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
 (Pro 25:2 NKJ)

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:58:19 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2010, 01:58:04 AM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2010, 01:59:16 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.
Logged

Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2010, 02:00:53 AM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word, the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2010, 02:07:00 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will  check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT  Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled.
 (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.
A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),  not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.


BUT I look forward to that Eastern Orthodox Bible" mentioned on your site, I trust they will have as a module in Bibleworks, which program, if you don't have, you are missing out.

http://www.bibleworks.com/
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 02:25:07 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,613


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2010, 02:34:00 AM »

Quote
but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Christ's primary language was Aramaic. It is beyond doubt He quoted from the Septuagint during His earthly life. Both the Gospels anf Jewish scholars who lived at the same time as He trod the earth.

You may, or may not be, aware that Greek was the lingua franca, the common language, of the Holy Land, both in the century or two before Christ (indeed, the very period where the Septuagint came into existence), as well as for at least several centuries beyond the time of Christ.

Let's not forget that the language in which the books and letters which became the New Testament (yes, Alfred, the very Gospels and Epistles, and even, the Book of Revelation, written by Apostle John the Evangelist on the Greek island of Patmos at the turn of the second century - 96AD, acording to Orthodox tradition) was Greek Then, as now, folks in that part of the world became naturally conversant with a variety of languages. A modern equivalent would be that of Central and Eastern Europeans, who, by sheer force of geography and political influence, became multilingual from childhood.

Is it not, therefore, quite feasible, that Jesus Christ was multilingual? That He knew Greek, as well as his native Aramaic, as well as the liturgical Hebrew of His kin? It is indeed an imprimatur to the authenticity of the Septuagint that Christ Himself quotes that very document. It is also damning to the Masoretic OT that certain crucial passages are utterly different in content to the LXX, such as the incarnational prophecies in Isaiah I referred to earlier.

Quote
So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

Nope. Compare Isaiah ch 53 in the LXX and the MT. Especially v. 10.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 02:41:26 AM by LBK » Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2010, 02:34:46 AM »

The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin).  A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2010, 07:36:35 AM »


In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

You missed my point.

Can't miss a missing target.

The lxx is translating the Hebrew plural for "gods" with the Greek plural for "gods", so in that sense is literal.

BUT the Hebrew uses the plural "gods" to also refer to the One true God, context alone determines which is meant.

No, syntax.  If you knew Hebrew, you would know that.

The plural is a "plural of majesty" when the Hebrew "gods" refers to "God."

The context of Exodus

no, only in the context of your agenda.

Quote
indicates "gods" is referring to the one true God, the image represented Him, not foreign deities:
Stay tuned, new arguments to follow, one of them based on Hosea 8:1ff

The word icon does appear in Hosea (13:2):
καὶ προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἔτι καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς χώνευμα ἐκ τοῦ ἀργυρίου αὐτῶν κατ' εἰκόνα εἰδώλων ἔργα τεκτόνων συντετελεσμένα αὐτοῖς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν θύσατε ἀνθρώπους μόσχοι γὰρ ἐκλελοίπασιν
13:2 And now they have sinned increasingly, and have made for themselves a molten image of their silver, according to the iicon (Bretton "fashion) of idols, the work of artificers accomplished for them: they say, Sacrifice men, for the calves have come to an end

So you can't distinguish between the icon of idols and the icon of the one True God.

The calves in Exodus, 1 Kings and Hosea are images, but they are used to worship God as the Orthodox would an icon, God is their prototype, hence God's reaction to that use is definitely relevant to icons also having a prototype. They both cut a figure.

Is Perssonism akin to Serapis and the Apis cult?  
Notice how other gods and images are listed separately:
 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

So this is OK?

because it's not another god, just a beast on the earth.

The Church wrote in her book, the Bible that God created man in His image and likeness, and that He emptied Himself and took the likeness of man. This god who serves as your prototype for calves in Exodus, I Kings (actually III Kingdoms) and Hosea must have made the bovine in his image and likeness, and taken the likeness of a calf, and is true god and true bull.

Or rather false god and true bull.  

There is a calf in the icon of the Nativity, but that's not Christ Our God. The calf is worshipping Him.
Full answer on the more appropriate thread on this link:
You seem intent on repeating Nestorius' mistakes.
That wasn't an answer, and its iconographers who accomplish two heresies, with one icon.
As they image because of the incarnation of Christ, they are tearing the humanity of Christ, from His deity = Nesotorian.
As they image the Person of Christ, with one image, they confuse the natures in one icon = Monophysite.
Yes, you have chanted that mantra before.  But none of us have converted to Hinduism in the meantime, so we won't be worshipping your sacred cow, even if you put it in Bethel or Dan.  Rather, we'll be serving up the sacred beef filled theological arguments of St. John and Christ's Church.


  They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

and they got them.

NKJ  Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

We don't need your apocrypha corrupting the text.

2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"
 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD."
 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
 (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

The Masoretic text agrees with the LXX, saying "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought (pl.) you..."

That it doesn't agree with your agenda is your problem.

No doubt Aaron thought he did good, stopped the rebellion, and restored both Moses and God to authority.

Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

 7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'"
 (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)

Your translation again corrupts the text.

So the Hebrew and Greek lxx read the same, but shouldn't.


I'll go with the Alpha and the Omega, and not the Title and the Jot, on how scripture should read.

If it was inspired the lxx should read as the NKJ translates,

And what is Perssonism's basis for holdong the NKJ as inspired?

rendering "gods" as "god" so readers would have a clearer sense of what is happening.

That would fit your agenda better, but not Hebrew grammar.

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

Here we have the danger of a translator who doesn't speak the language.

For sake of argument, let's say that the original text matched neither the LXX nor the Masoretic text, but the NKJ (which is based on the Masoretic Text and LXX), and that it was plural of majesty with singular agreement.

The Spirit then inspired the change (which in the actual texts we have is the original) to the plural, voiding the plural of majesty, and making the reference clearly polytheistic (much like the inspired translation makes clear that Isaiah said "the Vigin," and not just "a young woman").

That would undo your agenda, but uphold Orthodox theology.  But then, God is interested in upholding Orthodox theology, and not the agenda of Perssonism.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 07:45:48 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #59 on: August 13, 2010, 08:30:10 AM »

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Mt. 23:24.

85%+ of the NT uses the LXX, when the readings differ.  With odds like that, your problem is explaining why we should accept the Hebrew as inspired.

In Matthew, the tradition of the Church, besides naming the Apostle Matthew the Evangelist Matthew (whose Gospel leaves its author anonymous and unattributed), attests that he wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew/Aramaic and then rendered it in Greek (my working theory is that he compiled a logia type Gospel in Aramaic, and then rendered it into narrative on the model of St. Mark's Gospel).

Quote
Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

##

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT), not "her husband's brother"

Most brothers of a husband are her brother in law. Actually, all of them.

Quote
asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)

 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

In Greek there is no "technical [read:"legal"] term." There is no need: the Greeks didn't observe Leverite Marriage, and the Church forbids it.

So here, definitely a distinction without a difference. I Timothy 6:20. II Timothy 2:16.

I Timothy 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. II Timothy 2:14 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote
"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)


##

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)

I'll defer to your knowledge of the crafty.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 08:31:17 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #60 on: August 13, 2010, 08:40:48 AM »

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic

You just betrayed your agenda Hebrew=Masoretic Text=original and authritative.

Christ, His Apostles, the NT do not quote the Masoretic Text, as it didn't exist. If fact, they don't quote anything in Hebrew at all (though some Aramaic is quoted).


Quote
is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

So the rabbis corrupting the text against Christ doesn't bother you.

Quote
Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.

Well you go on walking disorderly,and not in the Tradition of His Apostles, but in that of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes. We will stick to the straight and narrow path the Apostles have laid, and stand firm on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #61 on: August 13, 2010, 08:46:56 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language,

So is Ancient Egyptian, and Greek for that matter.  Your point?

Quote
it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.
but not to you.  You make enough mischief with the texts we have, Lord only knows what you would do with ones you make up.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #62 on: August 13, 2010, 08:53:04 AM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word,

On what autority?

Interesting how you refuse to consider the Definition of the Fathers of the Church of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which predates the MT of the rabbis of Judaism by a century, as "the final word."

Quote
the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.
How do you know?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 08:53:29 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #63 on: August 13, 2010, 09:01:24 AM »


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will  check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew

Then why does he quote the Aramaic?

Quote
...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

then you are out of luck.


Quote
Its impossible Christ is wrong...

Christ isn't standing trial before your fellow rabbis anymore.

Quote
I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Those who refuse to look at the icon, look in the mirror instead.


Quote
NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT  Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled.
 (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.
A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew

No, Aramaic.

Quote
version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),

Sooo, you are admitting that your hypothetical Hebrew text has passed away.

Quote
 not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

And the authority of your belief?  Because it is not Christ, His Apostles or His Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 13, 2010, 10:32:41 AM »

The Jews did not have a set canon that all Jews everywhere accepted at the time of Christ. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, etc. believed in less books than most of the other Jews, so when Jesus was instructing those who used only the Pentateuch, or a lesser canon, he used the version of the Bible they used, but the rest of the time, fully 2/3 of the time, he used the Septuagint. (A great example to follow, reaching Christ from sources the potential convert already believes in and not using what he/she does not believe in) Since Jesus teaches from the Septuagint, anyone who does not believe the Septuagint is inspired, blessed, and truly the Bible, does not believe in the teachings of Jesus the Christ!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #65 on: August 13, 2010, 01:01:36 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

KJV  Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
 4 God forbid
 (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 KJV)

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

CJB  Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)


If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:26:46 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #66 on: August 13, 2010, 01:36:30 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. Roll Eyes  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #67 on: August 13, 2010, 01:42:04 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. Roll Eyes  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #68 on: August 13, 2010, 01:45:08 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. Roll Eyes  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #69 on: August 13, 2010, 02:00:12 PM »

St. Augustine of Hippo was one of those who criticized Jerome’s decision to make his translation into Latin out of the Hebrew.  He was concerned about two issues:  (1) that the new Latin translation would lead to divergences with the Greek-speaking part of the Church, and (2) that the translation would not be authoritative since Jerome’s skill in the interpretation of Hebrew would be questioned, and validated only with great difficulty.
 

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.  And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong?  Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours:  in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.  [From Augustine of Hippo’s, Letter LXXI, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume 1.]

It would perhaps be an interesting study to determine the extent to which using different Old Testament texts has contributed to the separation between East and West through the centuries.  Clearly, Augustine’s own reliance on a poor Latin translation of the book of Romans led him into erroneous conclusions regarding original sin. 

Augustine went on to state his desire that Jerome would provide a fresh translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, since it “has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is ... proved by looking to the text itself.”  In that statement, I think, it is clear that Augustine was correct.  Yet Jerome was of a contrary opinion, stating “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.  [Jerome’s Apology, Book II.]”  But that claim is manifestly false - unless Jerome’s Hebrew text was radically different from what we possess today.
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm
i.e. the MT.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,965



« Reply #70 on: August 13, 2010, 02:10:43 PM »

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  Shocked

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 02:12:31 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #71 on: August 13, 2010, 03:21:41 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles.

Then you would have accepted their Bible, the LXX.

Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

KJV  Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
 4 God forbid
 (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)
and the Hebrews translated the LXX.

As for the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scirbes, in whose way (Halakhah), the Protestants walk, Paul says:
Quote
Rom.9:6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.  26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed

10:11Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen[/size]

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe

Quote
John 6:52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve?
15:1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunesa so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
15Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’b If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.'  26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
 TITTLE MANTRA
You already admitted that it passed away
I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.
So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),
And it has already been proven different:
The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin).  A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word,

Any yet you do:
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?
I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.
That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Rom. 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. Mat. 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.


for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

Quote
CJB  Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)

LOL. Did Satan write the MT? Seems God's teaching wasn't written in Eden, but was by word.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I Thess. 2:15.

Btw, what monstrasity is the CJB? And the reason to be pretentious and use "ADONAI" instead of "LORD?"


If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

So you will repent for refusing to walk in the Way of Christ and His Apostles, and accept the LXX as the work of the Holy Spirit?
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mat. 12:32.

 
Quote
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)
John 9:5Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. 39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 03:26:15 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #72 on: August 13, 2010, 03:42:30 PM »

It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #73 on: August 13, 2010, 04:26:10 PM »

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  Shocked

The one the Church uses, of course!

On that:


And you still haven't explained why you are not guilty of plagerism and copyright infringment.
Huh?  Huh

Quote
In other words, the Ecumenical Councils.
I had no implication toward any ecumenical councils in mind, no. Rather I had gospel preaching, gospel experiences, and the virtual Christian consensus along with the blessing of the Spirit on the use of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, so you keep saying. But that 66 book Bible didn't come off the press until 1824, around the time Evangelicalism was coming into existence.  And it was plagerism to take the Pharisees who formed the Masoretic text, a Jewish text formed nearly a millenium after the birth of the Church (and hence NOT the text the NT quotes), and pass it off as a Christian Bible. No.  Give credit where credit is due: you've decided to walk according to

Of course, there's the problem that the Masoretic text is mangling the previous Hebrew canon: the Talmud itself comments on Sirach, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah based on the Scriptural warrant of Maccabees, etc.  The Jew Theodotion translated Daniel from a text that resembles the LXX and not the Masoretic text (it includes, Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths and Bel and the Dragon) in the second century AD.  Wouldn't know that from the Masoretic text.  But if one is going to take the Rabbis as one's authority, one has to follow their error I guess.

Where did you get that text for your NT?  Copyright infringment: the Church did the heavy work of sorting through those other Gospels, and you don't want to give credit where credit is due. ALL manuscripts of the NT are coupled with the Church's canon of the OT.  You take the Rabbis' OT, why not their NT? You can't have ours.

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

In fact, so great is the episcopacy, the presbyters of Acts 15, that St. Peter, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," nonetheless identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2), and the Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter."

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16  You cannot have the Church's book without the Church.

Of course, you have the free will to preach or accept another Gospel.

There's another issue:

3) All the Christian manuscripts of the OT are the LXX, or derived from it.  The only exception is the Vulgate: Jerome took a Jewish Hebrew text and translated from that.  The problem is that because that text had passed through Jewish (meaning those Hebrews who had rejected our Messiah) hands for several centuries, i.e. Jerome was not working from 1st century texts, it can still be said to be a Jewish text.  He was criticized for doing so at the time.

In other words, the LXX was translated by those we would say were of the same Faith as us (symbolized by the legend of St. Symeon as being one of the translators, and his problem with the translation of "virgin" leading to him being told he would not die until he saw its fulfillment).  Those Hebrews who accepted our Messiah continued to use the LXX and it Hebrew Vorlage (varient readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX, as do some pre-Christian scraps of the OT elsewhere).  Those who rejected Him used another text type, which was approved at Jamnia AFTER the birth of the Church.  The Masoretic text dates after Chalcedon, for instance.

In other words, the LXX has never been outside of those whom we would consider outside the Faith, which is a problem for Protestants: if you trust our Church to copy the Scriptures (and the King James Version, for instance, depended on late manuscripts from the Orthodox Church copied well over a thousand years after the autographs: as a matter of fact, I don't think they predate the schism of 1054), why do you reject that Church's interpretation.  How do you know that we didn't "change" anything?

Case in point: all Christian manuscripts of the Bible have the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals: none lack them.  And in this we are proved right in that the Jewish Talmud expounds on Sirach (the Hebrew text has been found in the 1800s).  The Jews celebrate Hannukkah although their rejection of Maccabbees has deprived them of scriptural warrent (1 Mac. 4:56–59) for doing so (and for our Fundamentalist friends, the Gospels record Our Lord celebrating it (John 10:22-24).  And the Jewish translation of Theodotion, done centuries after the rise of the Church, includes the disputed books (in fact, his transaltion of Daniel was preferred over that of the LXX by the Church, and it includes the "additions" in the LXX but not in the Masoretic text).   So one can follow the path of the Apostles, or that of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

And I haven't even touched the issue of the OT here: It seems that Perssonism rejects the Apostles in taking the Masoretic text over the LXX.  Given the allusions and quotations the Apostles take from the LXX, including what the Protestant reject as "apocrypha" (e.g. Christ celebrates Hanuka in John, although its only scriptural warrent is in Maccabbees), the NT doesn't give a list of the OT (and the Jews canonized their canon, upon which the Masorites depended, not until after the rise of the Church and the NT. In fact, the Jew Theodotion in 150 was still translating into Greek for the synagogue, for instance, what Protestants (and their brethren, the Vatican) have removed from Daniel (i.e. Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) what was not in the Masoretic text, but is in the LXX), nor can you reconstruct the canon from the Apostles citations.


The Church I know, so Christ I know and Paul I know, but who are you? You shouldn't wave the veil of Moses while invoking the name of Christ like a matador.  You can get hurt.

An earlier version of this got sucked in the "session verification failed" hole. I'll try to reconstruct.

So's the Talmud.

Actually the Talmud is in Hebrew & Aramaic, the Mishnah is in Hebrew & the Gemara is in Aramaic, so what.

Actually so too is the Masoretic text in Hebrew & Aramaic, and like the Talmud Jewish texts against Christ, His Church and the Tradition His Apostles passed on to His Church.  This is in contrast to the Peshitta and even some of the Targums.

As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

The Apostles and Yeshua used the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text,

Actually from His words on the Cross we know He used Aramaic.

Quote
not the LXX,

Fragments of the LXX have been found even in the caves used by the followers of Bar Kochba, and the Apostles certainly used it outside of Palestine and Syria, which is connected to your next "point"

Quote
the LXX was not used in any synagogue in Palestine,

80% of the Israelite inscriptions in Palestine (disregarding the Gentiles ones) are in Greek from the period, including a third of the inscriptions in and around Jerusalem. This would include the 1st cent. synagogue inscription of the priest Theodotus, the earliest synagogue inscription yet found:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/theodotus.html

At Masada, the Jewish graffitti is in Greek (and a solitary one in Latin). Greek texts are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This includes synagogue inscriptions (which include a quote or two from the LXX, but they may have been Christian synagogues).  The rabbis in the Talmud talk about the issue of using Greek, including in liturgy and reading the Bible, and R. Shimon b. Gamliel (the last nasi head of the Sanhendrin before the destruction of the Temple) is quoted as saying that in his father's house half of the thousand students devoted themselves to "Greek wisdom," and allowed Greek (and only Greek) alongside Hebrew in the Bible (his father, however, is said by early Tradition to have been a crypto-Christian).
Jerusalem: portrait of the city in the second Temple period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) By Lee I. Levine
http://books.google.com/books?id=gqL8C_JBEm0C&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Greek+temple+inscription+Jerusalem&source=bl&ots=gDeQoC4SyM&sig=OtVNl4yGZL8leebrIK20i5v4-F8&hl=en&ei=pwrGSqSlCZTllQfZw82SAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Greek%20temple%20inscription%20Jerusalem&f=false
Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine By Catherine Hezser
http://books.google.com/books?http://books.google.com/books?id=zlrxbYml2ioC&pg=PA249&dq=Greek+in+Roman+Palestine#v=onepage&q=Greek%20in%20Roman%20Palestine&f=false

And we are not even talking about the largest Hebrew community at the time, that of Alexandria, which was (as Philo shows) fully Greek speaking and using the LXX.

Quote
and certainly never in the Temple.
I agree that I would doubt it. It depends on how Hellenized the Sadduccees and their priests were.

We know that the temple had a least one Greek inscription:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/templewarning.html


Quote
Yes the LXX is translated from this text, but Greek is not one of our liturgical languages

Greek, like Hebrew and Aramaic, is one of those liturgical languages every Christian has.


Quote
Hebrew is, that's why we use the MT because it's the only complete version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls are too fragmantry to work with.
The Masorectic Tanakh by definition is incomplete, as it omits the Anagignoskomena that we know, from the Talmud and the Jewish translations into Greek against the Christians use of the LXX (e.g. Theodotion) show us that in the century after the Temple's destruction the Jews were still reading and using it  To this day, the only Scriptural warrant for Hanukkah is 1 Macc. iv. 59, and according to the rabbis the requirement of women participating (usually they are exempt) and eating cheese and dairy during that holiday is attributed to the story of Judith.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with the MT, it's a perfectly defensible text regarding Messianic prophecies


The same can be said of the New World Translation, the Jehovah Witnesses authorised standard (the reason I use it with dealing with their "dogma.")

Quote
(provided you know the Hebrew language), the Masorites did not alter the readings, they kept their opinions in the footnotes.


The Masoretic Tanakh, for instance, uses the truncated Daniel, when the translation of Theodotion shows that the fuller version was used even by the Jews.  The commentary on Sirach in the Talmud, and is serving as the basis of the Amidah show that it too was authoritative until the rabbis grew to dislike its use for the Christian catechumate.  In fact, the rabbis excised the whole of the Anagignoskomena.  These are opinions not confined to "footnotes."

I believe there is some groundwork to be layed out here before a proper debate can be conducted.

First, we should realize that the Septuagint text is a greek translation of the old testament which includes the hebrew books along with the deuterocanonical books written in the intertestamental period.

This attack is directed towards these deutercononical books specifically, not the Septuagint.

Next, what does the originator of this argument consider a "bible believing church" and a "biblical Christian" to be?



No, because of the Books of Psalms, Daniel and Esther etc. it is not just a question of translations leaving out the Anagignoskomena, but of which redaction.

We know that the Jews still used the redaction that the LXX used for Daniel, becasuse the Jew Theodotion in the second century produced a translation for them with included the things (Susanna, Son of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) that the rabbis, and their emulator St. Jerome and their Protestant followers, took out.  They still used Sirach, as the Talmud comments on it, and it passed into Jewish liturgics.  The Talmud comments on the "additions" to Esther.  They still used Maccabbees because they TILL THIS day celebrate Hanukkah, and its only scriptural warrant is I Mac. 4:56–59.

The NT also in many key places quotes the LXX, not a Masoretic Urtex.

"Biblical Christian": one who doesn't know history.

"Bible believing Church":one which has no history to the Apostles.

It would seem that God continued to use the Jews rejection of their Messiah, as described in Romans quoted above, to His purposes for His Church, as demonstrated by the acceptance of Theodotion's translation. (Daniel is particularly unreadable in the original LXX version, the fact that it was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, perhaps contributed to the difficulties).


Quote
Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Not even.  Although Mr.Persson repeats the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius (quite a feat) on the hypostatic union, Christ did not come with His Body from heaven but He did take flesh and dwell among us, and, as the Orthodox Church as maintained from the time of the Apostles. preaching "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the icon of God, for which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day, While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal," (II Cor. 4:4, 16-7) yet preaching with the Evangelist (Luke 2:52) that Christ as true man, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Hence, if God the Word Who took flesh changed, so too no doubt the word of God changed. But as God the Word made man changed like us in all things save sin, so too the word of God transcribed was transmittd like a book in all things save corruption.

The fact that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to move speakers of three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the spirit of Christ decidiing that the words of God the Word incarnate be transmitted (except for a few transliterated Aramaic phrases) in translation, I always took as preventing the Muslim attitude (which imitates the Jewish) to scripture.  But those who wear the veil of Moses do not see that.

Quote
The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?
Couldn't have: the Temple was destoyed in vengence for the martyrdom of St. James the Brother of God before the Jews fixed their canon, and their text wasn't fixed until after the Church celebrated her triumph over the Iconoclasts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #74 on: August 13, 2010, 04:30:06 PM »

It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.
yes, but it seems some cannot learn from the mistakes of others, and those who prefer the bomdswoman as their mother rather than the Church are, in knowledge and (as the case it seems here) in ignorance, dusting off the Nag Hamadi canon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #75 on: August 13, 2010, 07:46:18 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. Roll Eyes  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.

Not persecution, your response fits the text in other ways, for example,  It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths:

NKJ  Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. (Luk 6:22 NKJ)

But that's ok, I consider it all joy.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 07:47:11 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2010, 08:11:11 PM »

Unfortunately for you, no one here hates you. So that verse doesn't really apply.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,965



« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2010, 08:13:41 PM »

It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2010, 09:24:57 PM »

Unfortunately for you, no one here hates you. So that verse doesn't really apply.
Unfortunately Mr. Persson, although he objects to the denomination Perssonism, cannot seperate himself from his views. Fortunately, we can.
" save with fear pulling them out of the fire hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" Jude 23.

As St. Augustine said "Kill the sin, love the sinner."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2010, 09:50:24 PM »

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. Roll Eyes  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.

Not persecution, your response fits the text in other ways, for example,  It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths:

NKJ  Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. (Luk 6:22 NKJ)

But that's ok, I consider it all joy.


Alfred, we all confess Christ Jesus here, so there's no need to relate to us as if we're not Christian.  We just express our faith in Jesus in a way that you don't.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2010, 10:05:28 PM »

Alfred, we all confess Christ Jesus here, so there's no need to relate to us as if we're not Christian.  We just express our faith in Jesus in a way that you don't.
LOL. Yes. His.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #81 on: August 14, 2010, 12:46:01 AM »


The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.


Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11  in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.


the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called
the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.


What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection:
Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '?
 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken."
 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well,
 (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they live with Him as constant reminders of His promises--- therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead and fulfill His promises, because He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek. Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow the Septuagint change the Hebrew.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:18:36 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Pearl_Of_Great_Price
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 21


« Reply #82 on: August 14, 2010, 01:13:59 AM »

Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #83 on: August 14, 2010, 01:34:48 AM »

Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

Matthew emphasizes free will, "they  have closed" their eyes and ears.
John God's sovereignty, He blinded them.

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)

Both foreknowing and predestining occur to the elect who already were chosen before this event, hence the unsaved aren't mentioned at all in the context.

Rome 8i: 29 Its not about election, its describing two things God did to those He had already elected, and implicit in this is how (via foreknowledge)  God will reveal/prove His choice of the elect was just:

NKJ  Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested."
 (Rev 15:4 NKJ)


« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:57:07 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #84 on: August 14, 2010, 01:38:54 AM »

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:39:44 AM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #85 on: August 14, 2010, 01:39:06 AM »

Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Welcome to the forum!
Logged

Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #86 on: August 14, 2010, 01:48:31 AM »

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #87 on: August 14, 2010, 01:57:52 AM »

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."
No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting.  To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #88 on: August 14, 2010, 02:00:33 AM »

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."
No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting.  To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.

It is impossible to argue the apostles "believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" if they reject the change and stick to the Hebrew.

Its irrelevant how often they did this, doing it just once proves they wouldn't agree with the Orthodox on this.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #89 on: August 14, 2010, 02:13:16 AM »

I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 02:17:55 AM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #90 on: August 14, 2010, 09:30:00 AM »

Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

And history (besides theology) disproves that.

First, you keep on talking about the LXX changing the MT. The LXX predates the MT by a millenium, so the MT wasn't around for the LXX to "change."

Second, we have texts in Hebrew which agree with the LXX against the later MT. Besides the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is the Nas Papyrus, which contains the text of the Ten Commandments which agrees with the LXX text over the MT, an agreement with the LXX that the NT follows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Papyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cook,_Stanley_A._%22A_Pre-Massoretic_Biblical_Papyrus%22.pdf

So the MT cannot even claim original language priority. Indeed, the MT itself testifies to that: in Psalter, the MT divides the LXX Pslam 9 into two. Since, however, the MT Psalms 9 and 10 are acrostics (poems with lines in alphabetical order) in which 9 has half the alphabet and 10 picks up and continues to the end, showing that they should be together, as in the LXX.

Now, we don't have all the Hebrew texts predating the NT which agree with the LXX, to reconstruct the LXX Vorlage, but we don't have to. The Apostles gave us the LXX.

Third, the MT is a text 100% compiled by Jews, 100% for Jews, 100% to serve Judaism, something you yourself admit:
You already admitted that it passed away
I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured
The LXX is a text 100% Hebrew, because even the Greek parts (e.g. Maccabees) were written 100% by Hebrews, 100% or Hebrews (that's how the Jews celebrate Hanukkah).  (Btw, as recorded in the Talmud, the Jews thought it inspired, the fulfillment of Noah's blessing that Japheth would live in the tents of Shem).  Now the Jews rejected it because those the Apostles taught were too skilled at using it to convert the synagogue into the Church.  Why would anyone who claims Christ follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Scribes?  Only one who walked disorderly and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles.

Fourth, the Jews, after rejecting Christ and His Church, still continued to use the LXX text type, as the translation of the Jew Theodotion shows.  In fact, there is some question on whether Theodotion just revised the LXX, or retranslated from the Hebrew.  It spread throughout the Diaspora and its synagouges (and since the destruction of the Temple in 70, all the Jews were in Diaspora).  The rabbis rejection of this may have been because of the Church's adoption of his translation of Daniel (which has the Anagignosmena parts in it, because the Jews still read them).

Fifth, all the manuscripts of the Bible, with one exception, with the NT have the LXX as its OT, in all languages.  The exception is the Bible in Syriac, which used the Peshitta, but revised it on the basis of the LXX.  The Apostles' proclamation of the LXX has gone out into all the earth, and their use of its words to the ends of the universe.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:47:43 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #91 on: August 14, 2010, 09:58:12 AM »

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image icon (EIKWN) of His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·
fixed that for you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #92 on: August 14, 2010, 10:07:57 AM »

However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11  in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

I don't believe your authority Pres. Franz Pieper taught Millenialism. I don't thiink he would find it Apostolic.

Btw, St. James the Brother of God and the descendent of David sat on throne of David that Christ restored in Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Jerusalem succeeds him in sitting on it till today.
The throne of St. James still exists, St. Epiphanios (from Palestine, btw) says it will always exist, as I've posted:
For this group didn not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus own name, but "Nazoraeans."  However, at the time all Christians were called Nazoraeans.  They also came to be called "Jessaeans" for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.  But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, but Mary from David's line.  This was in fulfillment of sacred scripture, for in the Old Testament the Lord tells David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon thy throne."

.....since the Lord had told David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon the throne," and "The Lord swore unto David and will not repent," it is plain that God's promise is an irreversible one.  In the first place, what does God have to swear by but "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord?"-for "God hath no oath by a greater" [Heb. 6:13]  What is divine does not even swear; yet the statement has the function of providing confirmation.

For God swore with an oath to David that he would set the fruit of his belly upon his throne.  And the Apostles bear witness that Christ had to born of David's seed, as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ indeed was.  As I said, I shall pass ove most of the testimonies, to avoid a very burdensome discussion.

But someone will probably say, "Since Christ was physically born of David's see, that is, of the Holy Virgin Mary, why is He not sitting on David's throne?  For the Gospel says, "They came that they might anoint him king, and when Jesus perceived this He departed....and his himself in Ephraim, a city in the wilderness."   But now that I reach this place for this, and I am asked about this text, and why it is that the prophecy about sitting on David's throne has not been fulfilled physically in the Savior's case-for some have thought that is has not-I shall still say that it is a fact.  Not a word of God's Holy Scripture can come to nothing.

David's throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the Holy Church.   The Lord had combined this rank, which is both that of king and high priest, and conferred it on His Church by transferring David's throne to it, never to fail. [mh dialeiponta eis ton aiwna]  Formerly David's throne continued by succession until Christ Himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came "for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations," as scripture says.[Gen. 49:10]

With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, came to an end.  Until His time the rulers were anointed priests but after His birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. After Alexander on this heritage form the time of Salina, who is also called Alexandra, died out under Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. (Although Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers.  For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.  But then finally a foreign king, Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But because of this change in the royal house, the rank of king passed in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of  David and Israel, Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is established in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character, both ranks of king and high-priest, for two reasons: the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that in Godhead He is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in His divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that He is high priest and chief of high priests, since James having been ordained at once the first bishop immediately, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle.  Actually he was Joseph's son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord's brother because they were reared together.

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's [first] wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places.  And I find that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son and moreover that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and hence consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. For many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others have reported this of him. He was also allowed to wear the priestly mitre on his head [also said of St. John e.g. Eusebius III.31.3] besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.

Now as I said Our Lord Jesus Christ is "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and at the same time king after the order on high and so may transfer the priesthood with its legal charter.  But since David's seed through Mary is seated on a throne, his throne endures forever, and of His kingdome there will be no end.   He would need now to reposition the former crown; for His Kingdom is not earthly, as He said to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel, "My Kingdom in not of this world."  For since Christ fulfills all that was said in riddles, the beginnings have reached a limit.

For He who is always a king did not come to achieve sovereignty.  Lest it be thought that He advanced from a lower estate to a higher, He granted the crown to those whom He appointed.  For His throne endures, and there will be no end of His Kingdom.  And He sits on the throne of David, and has transferred David's crown and granted it, with the high priesthood, to his own servants, the high priests of the Catholic Church.

...Not "nazarites"-that means "consecrated persons."  Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men dedicated to God...John the Baptist too was one of these persons consecratd to God, for "He drank neither wine nor strong drink." (This regimen, befitting their rank, was prescribed for persons of that sort)....but besides as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoreans, as they say in accursing the Apostle Paul, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring leader of the sect of Nazoreans." (Acts 24:5) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name-not to profess the Nazorean sect, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries' malice had applied to him for Christ's.  For he says in court, "They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and and the Prophets." (Acts 24:12-14)

And no wonder the Apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean!  In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth-there was no other usage of the name then.  People thus gave the name of "Nazoraeans" to believers in Christ, of Whom it is written, "He shall be called a Nazoraean." (Mat.) Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of "Christians," though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since it is honored by the name.  For they think they can pren themselves on Christ's name; not on faith and works!

Thus Christ's holy disciples called themselves "disciples of Jesus" then, as indeed they were.  But they wre not rude when others called them Nazoraeans, since they saw the intent of those who called them this.  They did it because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called the Nazoraean" himself-so say the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles-because of His upbringing in Joseph's home in the city of Nazareth, which is now a village.  (Though He was born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed.  Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.)

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregareded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessanaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians-but "Nazoraeans," form the place-name, "Nazareth," if you please!  However they are simply complete Jews...As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are captives of the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard Him as a mere man-or whether, as the truth is, they affirm His birth of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe-Khokhabe in Hebrew.  For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after they left Jerusalem-Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdrew from it because of its coming siege.  And they settled in Perea for this reason and, as I said, spent their lives there.  That was there the Nazoraean sect began.

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still "under a curse," since they cannot fulfil the Law.  For how can they fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord they God at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentacost," on the site of Jerusalem.  As the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be filfilled, anyone with sense can see that Christ came to be the Law's fulfiller-not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law-and to lift the curse that had been put on transgression of the Law.  For after Moses had given every commandment he came to the point of the book and "included the whole in a curse" with the words, "Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words that are written in this book to do them."

Hence Christ came to free what had been fettered with the bounds of the curse.  In place of the lesser commandments which cannot be fulfilled, He granted us the greater, which are not inconsistent with the completion of the task as the earlier ones were.  For I have discussed this many times before, in every Sect, in connection with the Sabbath, circumcision and the rest-how the Lord has granted something more perfect to us.
there's more there.

Quote
Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.


the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called
the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.


What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection:
Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '?
 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken."
 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well,
 (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they serve as constant reminders of His promise because they alive with Him in Heaven, therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead to fulfill His promises, He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

And the Tradition of the Apostles, to do so correctly, which they handed over with the LXX, and the NT.

Quote
But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Mat. 23:24.

Quite interesting to watch you strain out the 15% and try to ride it to victory like a camel in the caliph's calvary.

Quote
Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow it to change the Hebrew.

We don't have to whittle it down to 1%, you have to inflate it to 100% to get the answer you want to the question you keep begging.

Quote
Similarly some believe the King James translation is inspired, but the facts contradict that belief also.

You might debate your fellow sola scripturists on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #93 on: August 14, 2010, 10:18:18 AM »

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

What changes to the LXX? The MT didn't exist until well after the compilation of the LXX, unless he's referring to pre-MT Hebrew texts, and specifically the Pre-MT text which was used to translate the LXX. This statement is IMO too obscure for use textual debates, or am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Perhaps a case of wrong choice of words?

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Considering that you quoted from Exodus...

The 1st 5 books of the OT were translated by the 70 Jerusalem scholars, but the other books were NOT, everyone must remember this - the true Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Torah by the 70. Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

Yes you were told right. As stated earlier the true Septuagint is the Torah translation of the 70, but because all the early Greek translations became known under the name "Septuagint", it is more correctly understood as a blanket term.

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  Shocked

Aren't the Scriptures "all-divine and inspired" no matter what language?

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens?

The originals that were penned by the original authors themselves may have been free from all errors but they didn't plop out of heaven.

If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Yip.

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not?

It's not impossible that the original compilations had errors though I doubt that's the most likely scenario. The Greek translations have errors cause they're translations so scribal errors are inevitable. Also copies in the original language will (and do) have errors too, scribal errors are inevitable for this case as well. This is really nothing for anyone to stress over.

These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on.

Let's not confuse actually writing a book (be it Genesis or Proverbs) with the decision of whether or not to preserve it by copying or translating it. Moses wrote Genesis, it was not written by some unknown scribe hundreds of years after his death (yes this opinion is faith based not a historically proven fact). But various scribes after his death, through the ages, have preserved his book by copying it, I believe, as faithfully as they could without deliberately altering a word in it. Later when it came the time to translate this book, the translators, I believe, translated it as faithfully as they could without deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of it.

Where editing is concerned I believe that the copyists and translators probably edited their own texts but I, out of faith, will not entertain the idea that they dared to tamper with the originals because they feared them.

Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?

To my knowledge there was never any such "Temple authority structure" event to declare any text "divine and unalterable", even the Council of Jamnia is just a hypothesis not a historically proven fact. The truth that Jews and Christians have always considered the Holy Scriptures both divinely inspired and authoritative.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #94 on: August 14, 2010, 10:50:45 AM »

Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

No, it just proves that they didn't use it in those instances.  I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't use it much except when debating types like you.  You seem to prefer it. If not, please let me know what version you want.
(btw, I think David Young mentioned he prefers the KJV, being English, which is why I use it with him.  I don't lump him with you).

Case in point: most (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, and James 2:11) of the NT follows the majority text of the LXX on the order of the Commandments.  But not Matthew 19:18, which reflects the order the MT adopted. Why?  Perhaps because Matthew being writtten in and for the Hebrew circles of Antioch, where they were divided between the Church and the rabbis, and a text closer, especially not in a difference of the Faith.

"And And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the law as under the law that I might gain them that are under the law." I Cor. 9:20.

Quote
The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

Yes, Christ and the Apostles did that.

And the translation from Hebrew, not the MT.

Quote
That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

Matthew emphasizes free will, "they  have closed" their eyes and ears.
John God's sovereignty, He blinded them.

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually

St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic, translated into Greek, for the Greco-Aramaic community in Antioch converted to Christ or not yet, before the destruction of the Temple. St. John's Gospel is written for only those within the Church, after it had been expelled by the Jews from the synagogue.

After looking at what the Fathers have testified to, we would have to look at the 15%, where they are (I suspect mostly in Matthew), the topic being discussed and the point being made, and what cross reference in the NT say. Also, if the Vulgate, a Latin translation from a Jewish Hebrew text (Jerome makes clear he is receiving the OT from the Jews, and St. Augustine makes that clear when he points out we received it from the Apostles) differs from the LXX and MT in those verses.

Quote
...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image iconof His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
fixed that for you.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #95 on: August 14, 2010, 10:57:05 AM »

Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

this is perhaps a more accurate portrayal.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #96 on: August 14, 2010, 11:04:32 AM »

I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.


I agree much scholarly conjecture is unsound. But Inerrancy is usually reserved for the autographs, not copies of them.  While our copies are many and good, its clear some spelling errors etc crept in. By most estimates, 99% of these are insignificant as they don't affect the sense of the text, less than 1% does. In that 1% its argued the essential meaning is unchanged:

The last group of variants or differences in the New Testament Greek texts are those that are both meaningful—in other words, they actually change the meaning of the text—and viable—in the sense that they cannot easily be explained away by looking at other manuscript evidence or external factors. This is by far the smallest group of variants or differences in the manuscripts, making up less than one percent of the total. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Some manuscripts have Romans 5:1 using a Greek letter called an omicron to create the word echomen; others use an omega resulting in the word echōmen. Thus the passage could be saying either "We have peace" or "Let us have peace" with God, depending on this single disputed letter. But how different are the two results? The bottom line is that neither usage contradicts the overall message of the New Testament.

Another example is found in 1 John 1:4. Again, a single contested letter means the difference between the passage saying "Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete," or "Thus we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete." The meaning is certainly affected by the change, but neither translation violates Christian doctrine. In fact, as Wallace argues "Whether the author is speaking of his joy or the readers' joy, the obvious point of this verse is that the writing of this letter brings joy."{4}

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223627/k.51B1/Bart_Ehrmans_Complaint.htm


If one's faith is destroyed because one mss has "color" while another "colour", it may be one never had genuine faith to start with.

However, often the supposed error is with the interpreter. Scholars have reversed themselves when archeology has proven scripture right, or correct exegesis revealed the difficulty actually arose because of facts the expositor missed.

At one time I blindly accepted the eclectic texts thinking Mark's longer ending proved them right. But that was reversed when I learned the text can be defended as scripture:
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

A simple argument reversed my thinking. As "snake handling" etc is so distasteful, what is more likely, the text be deleted, or inserted? As there were no snake handling cults controlling the text of scripture, ever, that seems to be a modern American phenomena, who in their right mind would insert an "embarrassing text" into the scripture? Answer, no one. Therefore it far more likely the text is genuine and as noted in the link above, there is much supporting it.

Moreoever, correct exegesis removes the alleged embarrassment. Christ spoke to the disciples, and defeating satanic forces is one of the signs that follow the founding apostles and prophets of the faith, as God's sign they are true believers. Its not saying believers must handle snakes. Christ appearing in another form (morphe) is like saying a golfer appeared in a different form than usual, it does not refer to physical form, but to what is manifested to others. So nothing unorthodox in the text at all.

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

The Bible remains "infallible" in spite of such insignificant spelling errors etc.




« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:20:25 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2010, 11:11:33 AM »

Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:15:41 AM by Nazarene » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #98 on: August 14, 2010, 11:14:43 AM »

Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.



« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:18:00 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #99 on: August 14, 2010, 12:21:50 PM »

Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
As the k'thiv and q're show.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #100 on: August 14, 2010, 12:23:04 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 12:25:41 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #101 on: August 14, 2010, 12:47:04 PM »

Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.
No, he was just the sponser.  The Holy Spirit was the employer (cf. the legend of St. Symeon). As the Lord (as Isaiah tells us) hired Cyrus as his foreman, so too Ptolemy. As Ptolemy was a pagan Greek, he represented the pagan gentile world, His intended audience and market, to whom the Lord was preparing the Way for His Gospel, starting the movement of God-fearers (e.g. Acts 18:7), and the wide dissimination of the Law as preparation for the Gospel. As Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, successor of St. Luke as historian of the Church, demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparation_for_the_Gospel
Quote
These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD'S, and He is the ruler over the nations'; and again, 'Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved'; and another saith, 'The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.'

These promises, having been long ago laid up in divine oracles, have now shone forth upon our own age through the teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ; so that the knowledge of God among all nations, which was both proclaimed of old and looked for by those who were not ignorant of these matters, is duly preached to us by the Word, who has lately come from heaven, and shows that the actual fulfilment corresponds with the voices of the men of old.

IN the preceding Book, I have traced the lives of the Hebrews of old time before the appearance of Moses, men beloved of God who proved that title true by crowning themselves with the rewards of every virtue. Their pious doctrines also and instructions I described, and moreover their perfectly true and religious beliefs concerning God, which we have confessed that we Christians had come to love and to desire. And now, following the order of succession, I will pass on to the civil polity in the time of Moses, which after that first stage in religion presents a second, namely that which, is provided with legal ordinances quite peculiar to the Jewish nation.

For we shall prove at the proper opportunity that the institutions of Moses were suited to Jews alone, and not to the other nations of the world, nor were possible to be observed by all men, I mean by those who dwelt at a distance from the land of Judaea, whether Greeks or barbarians.

But now I am going to set forth this mode of life, I mean the life in the time of Moses, not in words of my own, but as before only in the words of the very authors who have been approved among the Jews for their hereditary learning: for I think it is proper for me to present the testimonies on which my proofs rest, in the same way as I began, through the authors properly belonging to each subject.

As therefore I called up Phoenicians, and Egyptians, and Greeks as witnesses of the matters well known among themselves in their own country, so it seems to me that the present occasion properly claims these Jewish witnesses, and not that I should myself be supposed to be giving a superficial sketch of matters foreign to me.

But before coming to this point, I think it necessary to set plainly before my readers, how the oracles of the Jews passed to the Greeks, and what was the method settled for the interpretation of the sacred writings entrusted to them; showing also the number and character of the interpreters, and the great zeal of the king, whereby those oracles came to be translated into the Greek language; for the explanation of these matters also will not be unadvisable in regard to my proof of the Preparation for the Gospel.

For when the light of the salutary preaching of our Saviour was all but ready to shine forth unto all men in the Roman empire, more than ordinary reason required that the prophecies concerning Him, and the mode of life of the pious Hebrews of old, and the lessons of their religious teaching, hidden from long ages in their native tongue, should now at length come forth to all the nations, to whom the knowledge of God was about to be introduced; and then God Himself, the author of these blessings, anticipating the future by His foreknowledge as God, arranged that the predictions concerning Him who was to appear before long as the Saviour of all mankind, and to establish Himself as the teacher of the religion of the One Supreme God to all the nations under the sun, should be revealed to them all, and be brought into the light by being accurately translated, and set up in public libraries. So God put it into the mind of King Ptolemy to accomplish this, in preparation, as it seems, for that participation in them by all the nations which was so soon to take place.

For we should not otherwise have got from the Jews those oracles which they would have hidden away for their jealousy of us; but these in consequence of the divinely ordered interpretation were vouchsafed to us in a translation by the men who were approved among them for intelligence and hereditary culture.

These things are described by Aristeas, a man who besides being learned was moreover engaged in the transactions of the time of the second Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, in whose reign the translation of the Jewish Scriptures, made through the zeal of the king, was awarded a place in the libraries of Alexandria. But it is time to listen to the author himself relating the matter word for word in the following manner:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_08_book8.htm
thereupon follows the correspondance between the court of Alexandria and the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Apostles picked up where the 72 Elders left off.

And the 72 Elders gave the sense the Spirit wanted, not the rabbis. And He had the copyright, which He passed to the Church, not the rabbis.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 12:54:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #102 on: August 14, 2010, 06:39:23 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

I chose Stephanus because it contains the "Johanine comma", I believe its scripture therefore the best text would contain it.

If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess people like demons do, He doesn't override free will, He fully loves the individual He is speaking through, and so doesn't destroy any part of him.

When God bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had, God made sure the correct meaning was communicated.

So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence. Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.

I have enough confidence in the Septuagint and Peshitta, to cite them as God's Word...reserving the right to correct these with the Massoretic, if I need to. Because the apostles did precisely that on occasion, I cannot agree with the Orthodox the changes must be inspired by God and must be accepted, even where it contradicts the Hebrew. If the apostles practiced that, I would also, but they did not. But it does not follow one cannot quote the Septuagint as "God's Word," the NT writers certainly did that, often.


TO sum up, you have no standing to critique my method for choosing, its predicated upon faith, not the latest theory of transmission. Only if Jesus were shown not to be the Christ, would my faith in the Textus Receptus be shaken...fat chance of that happening.



« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 07:10:15 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #103 on: August 14, 2010, 06:50:55 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.


Quote
If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess like demons do, when He bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had. So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence.

Too bad you don't belief the parent addage: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Quote
Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #104 on: August 14, 2010, 09:38:10 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:49:54 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2010, 09:48:26 PM »

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations - both Catholics and Protestants arguably have been using defective texts for centuries. In my opinion, the best "base text" to orient TR towards the 1904 is actually the ASV.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:52:33 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2010, 09:55:09 PM »

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations.

Excellent, I look forward to it. I trust the Byzantine family of mss, and chose Stephanus because it retained the Johnanine comma, and seemed to be a faithful representative of that family of mss. The Majority Text followed by the NKJ lacks it and a few other items I think important. But if the Orthodox have a better text, I'd certainly switch.

It seems odd they didn't get this done in the 1st century...or after the canon was set...its been a long wait.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:57:19 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2010, 09:57:26 PM »

For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2010, 10:06:08 PM »

For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.


Thanks, i'll bookmark those.

Bibleworks "GOC" Greek Orthodox Text of the NT is the 1904 version, "This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission."

If you don't have Bibleworks 8.0 you are at a major disadvantage. With Bibleworks its possible to compare all these texts in parallel columns and do computer analysis of each, search for words, phrases, etc. Its an amazing program, worth more than what they ask for it.


http://www.bibleworks.com/
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 10:38:00 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2010, 10:48:29 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2010, 11:24:48 PM »

Milton's "Paradise Lost". Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #111 on: August 15, 2010, 01:32:24 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #112 on: August 15, 2010, 02:05:42 AM »

OOps.  Exodus 32:4.  Sorry.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #113 on: August 15, 2010, 09:39:11 AM »

Quote
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #114 on: August 15, 2010, 09:45:21 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #115 on: August 15, 2010, 10:05:44 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
Thank you.  I also left out that the Stone edition I have is a Hebrew translation.  If one wants to get literal, the beginning of the sentence, in Hebrew, does not say "this," but says, "these."  I think the main point is that this idol was not God, whether one uses the singular "god" or plural "gods."  Trying to argue that there is a difference between the MT and LXX in this verse is fruitless.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2010, 10:43:35 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular, as this commentary shows. It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:


they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them. But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].
5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.


Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 11:13:35 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2010, 11:26:22 AM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?

Precisely that, after the verse number, no text.

For example, the NET Bible has 18 blank verses. Chapter and verse divisions are a man made addition to scripture, not inspired, first used in mss having more verses than others.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2010, 11:34:52 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided. However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)

Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.



ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited. The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint, they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .



« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 12:05:57 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,965



« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2010, 11:13:11 PM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 11:13:36 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #120 on: August 15, 2010, 11:38:53 PM »

Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #121 on: August 16, 2010, 01:10:45 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular,
No, not belief but grammar, as I've demonstrated above:
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:....

....we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.


move away from the hammer.

Quote
as this commentary shows.

This commentary is wrong.

Quote
It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:

The OT (i.e. the LXX) says "gods" (plural)
32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

Quote
they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them.

Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles says otherwise.

Quote
But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].

They broke both. They are not mutually exclusive.  St. John of Damsscus and the rest of the Fathers expound on that quite a bit.

Quote

5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Another Protestant theory that the archeologist's trowel has buried.

In Elephantine, the last of the pharaoh's garrisoned a fort with Hebrews, and a catch of Aramaic documents documents the society there. They built a temple to Yahweh (called Yahu in the documents), but He had to share honors with a number of Aramaean and Egyptian deities, though oaths were sworn almost exclusively in the LORD's name.  Their religion also reflects what the prophets of Israel condemned.
"The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/543317
The Elephantine papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Bezalel Porten
http://books.google.nl/books?id=qdrO1O5UcD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Elephantine+Papyri&source=bl&ots=o5QZ7wTotG&sig=EFhKjVfuYPFHAo3Ir4eYmivT61M&hl=nl&ei=ze5CTPfOAsuoOP2XoM4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote
1 To my brothers,
2 Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May the gods seek the welfare of my brothers.
3 Now this year, the 5th year of King Darius, word was sent from the king to Arsames, saying:
4 In the month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite garrison. Now accordingly count fourteen
5 days of the month Nisan and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day to the 21st day of Nisan
6 are seven days of Unleavend Bread. Be clean and take heed. Do not work
7 on the 15th day and on the 21st day. Also, drink no intoxicants; and anything in which there is leaven,
8 do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, seven
9 days, let it not be seen among you; do not bring it into your houses, but seal it up during those days.
10 Let this be done as King Darius commanded.
11 To my brethren, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah.  
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/passover.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=LJ1c9We_ay8C&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=elephantine+worship+goddess+Jews&source=bl&ots=fL-SbJxWVq&sig=Ha0y6RI8gq405L2SbSF0i7-v9gA&hl=en&ei=jrFoTObzGMXunQeXwZzBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=elephantine%20worship%20goddess%20Jews&f=false

Quote
While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.

I'll leave you to wonder. Standing firm on the Tradition of the Church received of the Apostles, I don't have to wonder about such things.


I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided.

Only those who neither know the Apostolic teaching nor Hebrew grammar. The number of the pronoun suffix "your" has nothing to do with the number of gods, which has plural agreement both in the LXX and the MT (Targumim).  
Though you can make appeal to the Peshitta.
Btw, an interesting study by St. Ephraim, the glory of Syriac:
Signs of Ephrem's Exegetical Techniques in his Homily on Our Lord:Verbal Links between Exodus 32-34 and Luke 7:36-50
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Kim.html

Quote
However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)
Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.

This is the solution for a nonexistent problem. Unless you hold to the iconoclasm of Perssonism.


Quote
ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

You got our hopes up.

Quote
color=#7f0000]I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited[/color].

So you abandon your "authorities" when they don't support your argument.

Quote
The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

Indeed.

Quote
So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint,

No, you have hung yourself, because you haven't quoted a single Bible writer, but a bunch of translators 3,000 years later, authorities whom you know abandon, who you try to put in place of the inspired translators of the LXX.

Quote
they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

You prove you don't know what you are talking about: your statement isn't even substantiated by the first part of your sentence.

Quote
I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.


Since you are fond of novelties, why not try something new (for you) for a change, and find out what the Church has always taught.

Quote
Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Quote
does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .

We are still not Hindus.  Your mantra will not work.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:32:25 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #122 on: August 16, 2010, 01:51:38 AM »


Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

"The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.



THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.
[/i]


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 02:22:13 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #123 on: August 16, 2010, 02:37:25 AM »

Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.

I've added it to my list...it will be awhile.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #124 on: August 16, 2010, 02:43:22 AM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 02:49:36 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #125 on: August 16, 2010, 02:57:52 AM »


Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

So now you have gone from Judaizer to an Aramaic primacist? And actually, if you are not saying that they cite the Aramaic, then you are abandoning what you claim in the same sentence to have "substantiated."

Quote
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Proving yet again Jerome bears much of the blame for walking disoderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles. Jerome, the hubris of "correcting" an Apostle.

Quote
That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

"The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

Yet again seeking solutions for nonexistent problems, creating problems: since no one Galatia was speaking Aramaic, but Greek and hence were reading the LXX, St. Paul's argument would be confusing, presupposing as you do the Targum.

One doesn't need to know the Targums (which the Galatians didn't) to follow St. Paul's argument.  Just the LXX, and knowledge of the Greek distinction between the singular and pluarl (which the Galatians did).

Quote
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

Odd that you bring the ancient Jews in on this discussion, as the whole point of Galatians is that the Gentiles (to whom St. Paul is addressing in the Epistle) are to resist the idea that they have to become Jews to become Chrsitians.

Quote
That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Then why do you never cease citing them as your authorities?

Quote
Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.[/b]

You just substantiated that you don't know what you are talking about. Again.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 03:00:41 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #126 on: August 16, 2010, 03:02:29 AM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.



No, it contradicts what your Protestants read into the NT.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #127 on: August 16, 2010, 03:06:39 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 03:07:24 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #128 on: August 16, 2010, 03:56:53 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #129 on: August 16, 2010, 11:35:53 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?

This isn't about me, the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong, Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint, he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".


We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew, the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 12:04:07 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #130 on: August 16, 2010, 01:09:44 PM »

The Testimony of St. Justin Martyr (a native of Palestine), against the Jew Trypho c. 150
Revelation, truth, canon, and interpretation: studies in Justin Martyr's ... By Craig D. Allert
http://books.google.com/books?id=wGsJ8ndwDnQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=-0SMKHsSWQ&sig=wQjZWOmMAfBzMh1lNRqv642c5Yw&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Dialogue with Trypho By Justin (Martyr, Saint.), Michael Slusser
http://books.google.com/books?id=WBXUNkYU_bwC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=HnhgJCFB57&sig=zgVEeqB-DEsc86yzrA7iuedKdqU&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Quote
Chapter XIII.—History of the Septuagint.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion froth them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.

Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages.
“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.”

Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”

The witness of St Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies:
Quote
Chapter XXI.—A vindication of the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 against the misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint version. Arguments in proof that Christ was born of a virgin.
1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” (Isa. vii. 14) as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, [NOTE: Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d.]  both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.
2. For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they—for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians—sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired—God having accomplished what He intended. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. [See Justin Martyr, To the Greeks, cap. xiii. The testimony of Justin naturalized this Jewish legend among Christians.] And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,—He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared —for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;” (Matt. i. 18) and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” (Luke i. 35) and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, “Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.” (Matt. i. 23) But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: “And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good.” (Isa. vii. 10–17) Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He “will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,”—this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.
5. And when He says, “Hear, O house of David,” (Isa. vii. 13) He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be “of the fruit of his belly,” which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not “of the fruit of his loins,” nor “of the fruit of his reins,” which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established “the fruit of the belly,” that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;” (Luke i. 42) the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David’s] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive,” and who will have Him to be Joseph’s son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.
6. But what Isaiah said, “From the height above, or from the depth beneath,” (Isa. vii. 11) was meant to indicate, that “He who descended was the same also who ascended.” (Eph. iv. 10) But in this that he said, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth,—a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.
7. On this account also,  (Dan. ii. 34) foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what “without hands” means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.” (Isa. xxviii. 16) So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.
8. Wherefore also Moses giving a type, cast his rod upon the earth, (Ex. vii. 9) in order that it, by becoming flesh, might expose and swallow up all the opposition of the Egyptians, which was lifting itself up against the pre-arranged plan of God; (Ex. viii. 19) that the Egyptians themselves might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people, and not the son of Joseph. For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, (Matt. xii. 41, 42) or greater than David, (Matt. xxii. 43) when He was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men? And how was it that He also pronounced Peter blessed, because he acknowledged Him to be the Son of the living God? (Matt. xvi. 17)
9. But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree. (Matt. i. 12–16) But Jechoniah, and all his posterity, were disinherited from the kingdom; Jeremiah thus declaring, “As I live, saith the Lord, if Jechoniah the son of Joachim king of Judah had been made the signet of my right hand, I would pluck him thence, and deliver him into the hand of those seeking thy life.” (Jer. xxii. 24, 25) And again: “Jechoniah is dishonoured as a useless vessel, for he has been cast into a land which he knew not. Earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man a disinherited person; for none of his seed, sitting on the throne of David, shall prosper, or be a prince in Judah.” (Jer. xxii. 28, etc.) And again, God speaks of Joachim his father: “Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Joachim his father, king of Judea, There shall be from him none sitting upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat of day, and in the frost of night. And I will look upon him, and upon his sons, and will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, upon the land of Judah, all the evils that I have pronounced against them.” (Jer. xxxvi. 30, 31) Those, therefore, who say that He was begotten of Joseph, and that they have hope in Him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom, failing under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed. Because for this reason have these things been spoken concerning Jechoniah, the [Holy] Spirit foreknowing the doctrines of the evil teachers; that they may learn that from his seed—that is, from Joseph—He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David’s belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man].
10. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. (Rom. v. 19) And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” (Gen. ii. 5.), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” (John i. 3) and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #131 on: August 16, 2010, 01:32:42 PM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
This isn't about me,

Glad that you finally admit that:
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Quote
the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong,

It is clearly right, for those who can see.

Quote
Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ· οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ

Quote
If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint,

Which they were, Greek being their only language in common, and the quote is quoted from the LXX, as shown above.

Quote
he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

Obviously he could, because he did in Gal. 3:16.  You need only know Greek to follow it.

Quote
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

I'm being to wonder about your grasp of English.

Quote
The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".

Hence St. Paul's argument.

Quote
We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew,

Knock yourself out. I'll let you chase your tail on how this helps your "argument" for the MT.

Quote
the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.

So the inspired NT depends on the LXX translation, which (accepting your authorities) contradicts the Aramaic. Hence, for the NT to be inspired, it depends on the LXX being the correct translation.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:36:37 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #132 on: August 16, 2010, 07:01:20 PM »

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.



17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch




  NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.-NFM

  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined-NFM


NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.
NFM Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament morphology in Hebrew characters.


Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text, not the Septuagint. Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:17:44 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #133 on: August 16, 2010, 07:33:54 PM »

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.

Quote
In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

John 10:34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law [actually the Psalms] "I said, Ye are gods?" 35If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

See the silliness you get yourself into?

Quote
LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.

You just said Genesis 22:17 is absurd (God forbid!). 

And since St. Paul's is arguing that God DID NOT SAY "seeds," he obviously isn't sighting the Armaic Targum.

He says that in plain Greek, which it seems you do not understand. It is translated into English, which seems to be giving you trouble, but it baffles me why.  I'd remedy that before worrying about Aramaic and Hebrew.

Quote
17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch

So you are arguing that the promise was to all the descendants of Abraham. LOL. I'm flattered, being one, but you would be better off getting circumcized by your rabbis and join Judaism. Saying that it was not Christ to Whom God was refering, you contradict St. Paul and reject the Tradition received of the Apostles. Not the first time. Not by far.

  
Quote
NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.

ALL Hebrew nouns have gender. This one is masculine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u0ATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Gesenius+Lexicon+seed&source=bl&ots=yCNLAlXfa4&sig=bjnBdFHuo_G_HCzX0uRgvgb7n_w&hl=en&ei=BMlpTOn6I4bfnQfr1LDBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined


 (Gen 22:18 NFT)

NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.

Quote
Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text,

No, they were not, as the Galatians didn't speak Aramaic. Hence the name, "Galatians."

Quote
not the Septuagint.


He quotes it. And explicitely rules out a quote from your Targum.

Quote
Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint

Take it up with him.

Quote
because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.

Both St. Paul and the Galatians, unlike you, spoke Greek.  No problem with the argument by those who also understand it.  For those who want to make problems, well, they are on their own.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #134 on: August 16, 2010, 07:45:34 PM »


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:51:10 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #135 on: August 16, 2010, 08:12:06 PM »

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule by those who know what they are talking about.

some of my thoughts on the matter, and related issues
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies
Quote
Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Bk III Chapter XVI.—Proofs from the apostolic writings, that Jesus Christ was one and the same, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man.
1. But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that (See book i. 12, 4) Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan, (See also book ii. c. xii. s. 6) because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by Monogenes, for the confirmation of the Pleroma; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father; and yet another, the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma. I judge it necessary therefore to take into account the entire mind of the apostles regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, and to show that not only did they never hold any such opinions regarding Him; but, still further, that they announced through the Holy Spirit, that those who should teach such doctrines were agents of Satan, sent forth for the purpose of overturning the faith of some, and drawing them away from life.
2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself. And Matthew, too, recognising one and the same Jesus Christ, exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin, (Ps. cxxxii. 11) even as God did promise David that He would raise up from the fruit of his body an eternal King, having made the same promise to Abraham a long time previously, says: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. i. 1) Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: “But the birth of Christ (Matt. i. 18) was on this wise. When His mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Then, when Joseph had it in contemplation to put Mary away, since she proved with child, [Matthew tells us of] the angel of God standing by him, and saying: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;” clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;” but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, “But the birth of Christ was on this wise;” and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for “not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;” (John i. 13, 14) [Schaff's note: From this, and also a quotation of the same passage in chap. xix. of this book, it appears that Irenæus must have read ὃς … ἐγεννήθη here, and not οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν. Tertullian quotes the verse to the same effect (Lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 19 and 24)]. and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.
5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, “O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” (Luke xxiv. 25) And again does He say to them: “These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations.” (Luke xxiv. 44), etc. Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again.” (Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22) The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verifies, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,” (John xx. 31)—foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.” (1 John ii. 18, etc., loosely quoted)
6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another;  for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do,] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father’s pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. (Eph. i. 10) But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.
 announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.
8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian] dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of error allege to be a production of those who were made Æons in a state of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought.” (2 John 7, 8 ) And again does he say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” (1 John iv. 1, 2) These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, “Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;” (1 John v. 1) knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.
9. Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus.” (Rom. v. 17) It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 3, 4) But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: “For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Rom. v. 6–10)  He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was laid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Christ and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven, as he himself [Paul] says: “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.” (Rom. viii. 34) And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:” (Rom. vi. 9) for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teachers [with regard to the Lord’s person], and being desirous of cutting away from them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also declares:] “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11) This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the right hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; “who, when He was buffeted, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not;” (1 Pet. ii. 23) and when He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who had crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

BK IV Preface.

3. For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and that the Saviour was a product of those Æons who were produced from a defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they, “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke i. 2) of truth, hold no such opinions, but that they did also preach to us to shun these doctrines,(2 Tim. ii. 23) foreseeing by the Spirit those weak-minded persons who should be led astray. [Schaff's note: The solemnity of the apostolic testimonies against the crop of tares that was to spring up receives great illustration from Irenæus. 1 John ii. 18.]
4. For as the serpent beguiled Eve, by promising her what he had not himself, [2 Pet. ii. 19.] so also do these men, by pretending [to possess] superior knowledge, and [to be acquainted with] ineffable mysteries; and, by promising that admittance which they speak of as taking place within the Pleroma, plunge those that believe them into death, rendering them apostates from Him who made them. And at that time, indeed, the apostate angel, having effected the disobedience of mankind by means of the serpent, imagined that he escaped the notice of the Lord; wherefore God assigned him the form [Rev. xii. 9] and name [of a serpent]. But now, since the last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men, which not only renders them apostates, but by many machinations does [the devil] raise up blasphemers against the Creator, namely, by means of all the heretics already mentioned. For all these, although they issue forth from diverse regions, and promulgate different [opinions], do nevertheless concur in the same blasphemous design, wounding [men] unto death, by teaching blasphemy against God our Maker and Supporter, and derogating from the salvation of man. Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, “Let Us make man.” (Gen. i. 26) This, then, is the aim of him who envies our life, to render men disbelievers in their own salvation, and blasphemous against God the Creator. For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.

Bk. IV Chapter XXIV.—The conversion of the Gentiles was more difficult than that of the Jews; the labours of those apostles, therefore who engaged in the former task, were greater than those who undertook the latter.
1. Wherefore also Paul, since he was the apostle of the Gentiles, says, “I laboured more than they all.” (1 Cor. xv. 10) For the instruction of the former, [viz., the Jews,] was an easy task, because they could allege proofs from the Scriptures, and because they, who were in the habit of hearing Moses and the prophets, did also readily receive the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of God,—Him who, by the spreading forth of hands, did destroy Amalek, and vivify man from the wound of the serpent, by means of faith which was [exercised] towards Him. As I have pointed out in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He, in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary. But although they who were of the circumcision still did not obey the words of God, for they were despisers, yet they were previously instructed not to commit adultery, nor fornication, nor theft, nor fraud; and that whatsoever things are done to our neighbours’ prejudice, were evil, and detested by God. Wherefore also they did readily agree to abstain from these things, because they had been thus instructed.
2. But they were bound to teach the Gentiles also this very thing, that works of such a nature were wicked, prejudicial, and useless, and destructive to those who engaged in them. Wherefore he who had received the apostolate to the Gentiles, [Schaff's note: A clear note of recognition on the part of our author, that St. Paul’s mission was world-wide, while St. Peter’s was limited.] did labour more than those who preached the Son of God among them of the circumcision. For they were assisted by the Scriptures, which the Lord confirmed and fulfilled, in coming such as He had been announced; but here, [in the case of the Gentiles,] there was a certain foreign erudition, and a new doctrine [to be received, namely], that the gods of the nations not only were no gods at all, but even the idols of demons; and that there is one God, who is “above all principality, and dominion, and power, and every name which is named;” (Eph. i. 21) and that His Word, invisible by nature, was made palpable and visible among men, and did descend “to death, even the death of the cross;” (Phil. ii. 8 ) also, that they who believe in Him shall be incorruptible and not subject to suffering, and shall receive the kingdom of heaven. These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings.

Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.
1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Gen. i. 3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” (John i. 3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” (Eph. iv. 5, 6)—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” (Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19)  And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the icons of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; [Schaff's note: If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.] and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

Quote
Bk V. Preface: In the four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions. [I have accomplished this by adducing] something from the doctrine peculiar to each of these men, which they have left in their writings, as well as by using arguments of a more general nature, and applicable to them all Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons. Then also—having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables—I shall endeavour, in this the fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord’s doctrine and the apostolical epistles: [thus] complying with thy demand, as thou didst request of me (since indeed I have been assigned a place in the ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means in my power to furnish thee with large assistance against the contradictions of the heretics, as also to reclaim the wanderers and convert them to