- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 07 2007,06:08)
I agree with that, but which does that source say is considered the older “tradition”? My studies indicate that the Septuagint tradition is considered older. Meaning the Masoretic is younger. Meaning an altered text variant from the septuagint tradition.What you are likely referring to is that the Septuagint has an older existent copy than the Masoretic outside of the DSS. Yet since only 5% of the scrolls support to the Septuagint and most of those were found in a cave that scholars now believe was a place to store questionable texts, you don’t really have much of a case.
Quote LXX is not a translation of the Masoretic. It is a seperate tradition. A seperate lineage of text variants. Both text types along with the new testament have corruptions. But God be praised for archaelogy and textual criticism. And the Samaritan Pentateuch disagrees with them both in many aspects but it does agree with the LXX more often than not. Which just goes to show that humans always mess up a good thing
. Still one must realize that the majority of texts found (60%) that were purposely preserved were of proto-masoretic type.Quote This is the part where people hate to conceive the idea that manuscripts have been tampered with. Yes they have been corrupted. No doubt. I’ve never said that the Jewish bible was error-free. To believe so would be to discount human nature and error.
Quote The masoretic tradition was becoming more and more the tradition of text followed. Just as the Jews more and more splintered into groups who no longer believed in angels or demons or spirits etc. Traditions of men determining “doctrine” and doctrine then determing “scriptures”.
This is a familiar pattern.
Was it? Or was it more like the majority returning to the roots of the Jewish scriptures? As I said demonology did not take hold of the Israelites until their Babylonian captivity which was rather late in their history before the first century CE. So while you may call it ‘traditions of men’ it could be viewed more as ‘truth of G-d’ because none of this demonology existed during the early times of Jewish history.
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 07 2007,08:01) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint See for yourself.
While reading see what the consensus on these questions are:
Which is the oldest?
There is no mention of which is oldest other than the existing manuscripts.
Quote Which text variants are influenced by which others? What is most likely the “original” traditional renderings?
To be honest there was nothing in this wikipedia entry to lead to any of this. All was said was that there is evidence of some scrolls that the LXX agreed with thus concluding that there was an early Semitic variant. No big deal and to be expected.
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 07 2007,10:21) Oh Oh! Now which are we to believe? Seems the Old Testament is “False” according to the reasoning of Tow! We have an Old Testament older than the one he basis his whole “theory of the “false” Messiah! Now what is Tow going to do?
I can still prove he is false using only the Septuagint if you’d like. I like the way the Septuagint translates Zech 12:10
Zec 12:10 [Apostles] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon Me, because they have mocked Me, and they shall make lamentation for Him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son.
No more piercing in the LXX! Seems the Christian bible writers picked and chose whichever versions fit their agenda.
Besides the Septuagint does not conflict the Masoretic in any meaningful way. Sorry to squash your hopes. I hope you didn’t dance too much in anticipation.
Quote Of Course one compliments the other. The wording a little different “as the gospels” but the meaning the same. Nah I’ll keep showing where the conflicts are. I’m still waiting for someone to give me a legitimate list of real messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.
Quote This is why we are guided by the Spirit OF TRUTH! 
The spirit that ignores the lack of evidence for Jesus in many places and the evidence against him in others. I would call that a blind spirit.
Quote Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Neither Tow nor Stu can receive the holy Spirit in their present state.
Oh no whatever shall we do? We MUST accept Jesus because we don’t want to burn in hell. Oh wait burning in hell is a myth. Sorry I almost got caught up.
Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
What was that Jesus called himself so often? Oh yeah ‘son of man’. Well there you have it.
Quote 1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.Thanks MS!
If no man is truly needed to teach a ‘true’ Christian then why are you here? After all you don’t need anyone’s teaching and they don’t need yours. Says right there that the Holy Spirit is all you need. So tell the teachers and preachers to find new things to do.
My and I wonder why Paul wrote to all of those churches? Guess they weren’t Christians because otherwise they wouldn’t need Paul’s teaching. Hey you might as well chunk your bible while you’re at it because Paul was a man as was the evangelists and you certainly don’t need any man teaching you.
See how easy Christianity can be! Wow maybe I need to come back. Truly with the Holy Spirit I’ll know all things.
some highlights:
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version.
The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 08 2007,03:58) some highlights: It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
And yet 60% of the DSS supports the Masoretic while only 5% the LXX, and much of that 5% was found in cave 4.
Quote While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.
Yes there appears to be a different one but none of this speaks to the validity of the variant just that one existed. Since the Essenes did not seem to care to preserve much of that variant and it is known that the Essenes were at odds with the Jews in Jerusalem, it seems odd that the majority of the texts they preserved were of the Masoretic type. Thus it can be reasonably assume that even the Essenes did not care for the variant that led to the LXX.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 08 2007,21:18) Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 08 2007,03:58) some highlights: It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
And yet 60% of the DSS supports the Masoretic while only 5% the LXX, and much of that 5% was found in cave 4.
Quote While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.
Yes there appears to be a different one but none of this speaks to the validity of the variant just that one existed. Since the Essenes did not seem to care to preserve much of that variant and it is known that the Essenes were at odds with the Jews in Jerusalem, it seems odd that the majority of the texts they preserved were of the Masoretic type. Thus it can be reasonably assume that even the Essenes did not care for the variant that led to the LXX.
The essenes also kept large quanties of books such as the book of enoch. Many many copies.the text type of the septuagint is far more congruent to a tradition that supports the beliefs taught in apocryphal books such as Enoch.
As a Christian I am aware that Jesus came into the world at a time when he accused the jewish nation of following traditions of men. I am aware he prefered to quote the septuagint tradition. I am also aware that he warned his disciples to beware the teachings of the scribes.
Let me sum up:
It is not my goal to discredit the masoretic and uplift the septuagint.
I am demonstrating that many traditions with their respective history of scriptures and textual variants existed in the days of Jesus.
You are using one particular “tradition of interpretation” and one particular “text type” and then claiming it to be the correct one and thus trying to use that to discredit the validity of Christ's claims.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that it is not so cut and dry of a case.
You don't have to agree, I am not claiming a smoking gun here. I am just trying to elicit an honest response that you are following one of many optional “traditions” of both text type and religous interpretation.
Knowing this. Are you sure that you have chosen the correct one?
If yes. Then share. Thats the type of information that I would like to know.
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 08 2007,21:18) Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 08 2007,03:58) some highlights: It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
And yet 60% of the DSS supports the Masoretic while only 5% the LXX, and much of that 5% was found in cave 4.
Quote While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.
Yes there appears to be a different one but none of this speaks to the validity of the variant just that one existed. Since the Essenes did not seem to care to preserve much of that variant and it is known that the Essenes were at odds with the Jews in Jerusalem, it seems odd that the majority of the texts they preserved were of the Masoretic type. Thus it can be reasonably assume that even the Essenes did not care for the variant that led to the LXX.
correct me if I am wrong.60% support prot-masoretic text type
5% support septuagint text typeDoesn't the remaining 35% of textual variants support a text type more simular to the septuagint?
given that i am discussing how text variants are equal to variants in religious tradition.
If that is the case wouldnt it be a ratio of:
60% masoretic traditional type
40% septuagint traditional typeNow take into consideration that in most cases the septuagint text type and pro-masoretic text types agree in most areas. They are only different is some keys areas.
These differences influence several key ideas such as angelogy and christology?
Many scholars believe that the proto-masoretic tradition was coming into existence during the politics of hellinized occupation. As the various Jewish traditions sprung up. Saduccees and Pharisees. This newer tradition surplanting the older tradition supported by the septuagint tradition type.
Jesus came on the scene making accusations that sound very simular.
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 08 2007,06:05) Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 08 2007,21:18) Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 08 2007,03:58) some highlights: It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
And yet 60% of the DSS supports the Masoretic while only 5% the LXX, and much of that 5% was found in cave 4.
Quote While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.
Yes there appears to be a different one but none of this speaks to the validity of the variant just that one existed. Since the Essenes did not seem to care to preserve much of that variant and it is known that the Essenes were at odds with the Jews in Jerusalem, it seems odd that the majority of the texts they preserved were of the Masoretic type. Thus it can be reasonably assume that even the Essenes did not care for the variant that led to the LXX.
The essenes also kept large quanties of books such as the book of enoch. Many many copies.the text type of the septuagint is far more congruent to a tradition that supports the beliefs taught in apocryphal books such as Enoch.
As a Christian I am aware that Jesus came into the world at a time when he accused the jewish nation of following traditions of men. I am aware he prefered to quote the septuagint tradition. I am also aware that he warned his disciples to beware the teachings of the scribes.
Let's see the first gospel was written about 35-40 years after Jesus' death. So to say Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is highly suspicious just because the gospels have him doing so. The gospels were the works of their writers and they used whichever version of scripture supported their view. Who knows what Jesus really said.
Quote Let me sum up: It is not my goal to discredit the masoretic and uplift the septuagint.
I am demonstrating that many traditions with their respective history of scriptures and textual variants existed in the days of Jesus.
You are using one particular “tradition of interpretation” and one particular “text type” and then claiming it to be the correct one and thus trying to use that to discredit the validity of Christ's claims.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that it is not so cut and dry of a case.
You don't have to agree, I am not claiming a smoking gun here. I am just trying to elicit an honest response that you are following one of many optional “traditions” of both text type and religous interpretation.
Knowing this. Are you sure that you have chosen the correct one?
If yes. Then share. Thats the type of information that I would like to know.
Like I said Septuagint or not I can show Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies. Give me a list of REAL messianic prophecies he supposedly fulfilled and I'll analyze them using the Septuagint as the a proof-text.I thought I will give you the list as you requested.I just dont remember where I got them from.Found these in my old files..
I have to say that the messianic prophecies are very straight forward.
1) The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)
2) Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him
for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)3) The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
4) He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
5) The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2)
6) Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
7) Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)
8) He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)
9) All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
10) Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
11) There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
12) All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
13) The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
14) He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)
15) Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)
16) The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
17)The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
18)Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
19)The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot (Laws)
20) He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9)
21)Jews will know the Torah(Old Testament) without Study (Jeremiah 31:33)
22)He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
23)He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)
Temporal Punishment
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him “to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow” until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the “land of promise” (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
Venial SinsAll sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His “eyes are too pure, to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.
So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. (“Aeneid,” VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, “Antigone,” 450 sq.).
Hi Tux; Christs sacrifice atoned for all our sins.
Sinning is braking a commandment of God, to God sin is sin. Braking a command of man, like running a stop sign, is not a sin for which God will hold you accountable; unless your negligence caused an accident and you killed some one.
In any case, Christ died for our sins, other wise they would bury the dead with a bare of soap.
Col. 2:13 “… he forgave us ALL our sins…”Quote (jhenTux @ Nov. 05 2007,18:07) does it really exist?
Only in Dante's comedy, “The inferno”.Georg
New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges:
“In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”
“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”
—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.
We could always ask Dante.
Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,10:26) New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”
“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”
—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.
We could always ask Dante.
Yet again you prove your astounding ignorance. The “U.S. Catholic” is not official church position.Purgatory is NOT a “middle ground between heaven and hell”. It is referred to in Scripture at the judgment seat (bema) of Christ. (2 Cor. 5:8-10)
Purgatory has NOTHING to do with hell. It is only for those who die in friendship with God.
Further, it is Western Catholic in theology. The East would refer to “Final Theosis”.
But I don't want to get into casting pearls before swine.
You all still haven't been able to support your hair-brain idea called “Sola Scriptura.”
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,20:24) Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,10:26) New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”
“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”
—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.
We could always ask Dante.
Yet again you prove your astounding ignorance. The “U.S. Catholic” is not official church position.Purgatory is NOT a “middle ground between heaven and hell”. It is referred to in Scripture at the judgment seat (bema) of Christ. (2 Cor. 5:8-10)
Purgatory has NOTHING to do with hell. It is only for those who die in friendship with God.
Further, it is Western Catholic in theology. The East would refer to “Final Theosis”.
But I don't want to get into casting pearls before swine.
You all still haven't been able to support your hair-brain idea called “Sola Scriptura.”
Hi CA:Where does it say purgatory or that this judgment is the “middle ground between heaven and hell”?
Quote 2Cr 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad. Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Sep. 01 2009,10:16) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,20:24) Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,10:26) New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”
“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”
—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.
We could always ask Dante.
Yet again you prove your astounding ignorance. The “U.S. Catholic” is not official church position.Purgatory is NOT a “middle ground between heaven and hell”. It is referred to in Scripture at the judgment seat (bema) of Christ. (2 Cor. 5:8-10)
Purgatory has NOTHING to do with hell. It is only for those who die in friendship with God.
Further, it is Western Catholic in theology. The East would refer to “Final Theosis”.
But I don't want to get into casting pearls before swine.
You all still haven't been able to support your hair-brain idea called “Sola Scriptura.”
Hi CA:Where does it say purgatory or that this judgment is the “middle ground between heaven and hell”?
Quote 2Cr 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad. Love in Christ,
Marty
Go read what I wrote and responded to. I'm the one who just said that Purgatory is “not” the middle ground between heaven and hell.I believe the passage means what it says. Of course the Church has the proper interpretation. Naturally.
O, and I know that you are very comfortable defying the apostles and fathers of the church. I just can't understand how you can sleep at night.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
