Masoretic or Suptuagint ? Which one is THE Word of GOD?

[alexsonofmatthew]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

 

[DeaconDean]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

Two questions.

One: When was the Septuagint written?

Two: When was the Maseortic Text written?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[dysert]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

Neither one is THE Word of God. THE Word of God existed only in the original manuscripts (autographs). All the copies of them may contain errors.

When doing textual criticism, trying to ascertain as best as possible the original text, you need to follow a lot of guidelines. For one, since the LXX is older, it would tend to be more accurate - however, it's a translation, so the original Hebrew text is essentially lost in the LXX.

The Masoretic text, while still in Hebrew, is several hundred years more recent than the LXX, so there has been that much time for errors to be introduced.

Bottom line: only the originals were inspired and inerrant.

 

[abacabb3]

Agreed with the above. I'm more of a LXX guy for now, being that the Epistles more consistently quote it than many Masoretic renderings. Te vulgate also captures many early Hebrew renderings, which is useful.

 

[CrossDrivenWriter]

Neither one is THE Word of God. THE Word of God existed only in the original manuscripts (autographs). All the copies of them may contain errors.

When doing textual criticism, trying to ascertain as best as possible the original text, you need to follow a lot of guidelines. For one, since the LXX is older, it would tend to be more accurate - however, it's a translation, so the original Hebrew text is essentially lost in the LXX.

The Masoretic text, while still in Hebrew, is several hundred years more recent than the LXX, so there has been that much time for errors to be introduced.

Bottom line: only the originals were inspired and inerrant.

That doesn't sound right. If the Bible I hold in my hands isn't the inspired word of God, then it isn't authoritative and I can ignore whatever I want. If we are to take the Scriptures seriously, we must acknowledge the divine inspiration of their writings. No matter the language, the meaning of the Scriptures is authoritative.

 

[dysert]

That doesn't sound right. If the Bible I hold in my hands isn't the inspired word of God, then it isn't authoritative and I can ignore whatever I want. If we are to take the Scriptures seriously, we must acknowledge the divine inspiration of their writings. No matter the language, the meaning of the Scriptures is authoritative.

That's good in theory, but in practice it becomes problematic. If I'm holding a copy of the HCSB, you're holding a copy of the KJV, and someone else is holding a copy of the ESV, who (if anyone) is holding "the inspired word of God"? The goal should be to uncover what was in the autographs so that we have a corpus that's virtually been untainted by the mistakes of humans in copying and translating. And, of course, the original languages did not include English, so at best you're still dealing with a translation, and no translation is perfect.

 

[OzSpen]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

Neither one because they are not the original manuscripts.

Why don't you take a read of this article, 'Masoretic Text vs Original Hebrew'?


Oz

 

[CrossDrivenWriter]

That's good in theory, but in practice it becomes problematic. If I'm holding a copy of the HCSB, you're holding a copy of the KJV, and someone else is holding a copy of the ESV, who (if anyone) is holding "the inspired word of God"? The goal should be to uncover what was in the autographs so that we have a corpus that's virtually been untainted by the mistakes of humans in copying and translating. And, of course, the original languages did not include English, so at best you're still dealing with a translation, and no translation is perfect.

I agree that we should try to understand the original meaning of the autographs. However, remember that things are not only lost in translation, but lost in experience. Some ideas only make sense in the historical context of those who were reading them. Are you saying we must also be time travelers to experience the inspired word of god?

God tells us that the Scriptures are "God breathed", and are useful for reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.(2 Timothy 3:16) Are you telling me that this verse in my Bible is not indeed the Scripture?

It also doesn't make logical sense for God to open a dialogue with us through the scripture that we cannot use, for what use is the Bible if it cannot be understood without the autographs-autographs that we don't have? It would be as if we are trying to speak with him in one language and he responds in another. That doesn't fit the description of a God who wants a personal relationship with his people.

If it as you say, and the only "inspired scriptures" are those in the original language, then the Priesthood of the Roman Catholics is the only way God could respond back to us because the common man does not have the time or necessarily have the skill to read Greek. But we know such a priesthood is unnecessary, because the Holy Spirit rests within us.

The fact of the matter is that the meaning of the Scripture is true today, tomorrow, and forever. Language imperfectly communicates these scriptures, but that does not change their inerrancy. As long as a translation makes an earnest effort to stay true to the meaning of the scriptures as God has revealed to us, it can be considered the inerrant Word of God.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up. Please remember the Congregational Forum Restrictions rule when posting in any Congregational forum:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and orthodox Christian Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for orthodox Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum.

You can find that listed within the Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

Your are not allowed to teach OR debate in any congregational forum unless you share their core teachings and beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[classicalhero]

Well the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an insight into the solution. The fact that generally agree with the Masoretic traditions than it does with the Septuagint.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an insight into the solution. The fact that generally agree with the Masoretic traditions than it does with the Septuagint.

Not necessarily.

There is a book, that can be downloaded.

I recomend it.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls" James H. Chadworth, Editor, Baylor University Press, Baylor, Texas, 2006.

I have been reading it, and so far, I have nothing that says the Septagint is worthless. On the contary.

I plan on adding to my library, the LXX.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[abacabb3]

Neither one because they are not the original manuscripts.

Why don't you take a read of this article, 'Masoretic Text vs Original Hebrew'?


Oz

Very good article. The LXX is not perfect, but it maintains many faithful readings and I really don't know why the Protestant movement is so wedded to the MT.

 

[OzSpen]

Originally Posted by classicalhero

Well the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an insight into the solution. The fact that generally agree with the Masoretic traditions than it does with the Septuagint.

In this brief article, the Biblical Archaeology Society investigates 'The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll: Should the original Hebrew Bible text be modified based on new information obtained from the scrolls?' Part of the article states:

The Dead Sea Scrolls did not, as some early dreamers speculated, answer the age-old question: Where is the original Bible? Not, as it turns out, in the caves of Qumran. Nor do the scrolls include long lost books of the Bible. Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

Nevertheless, there are differences (some quite significant) between the scrolls and the Masoretic text....

And as far as answering the question: Where is the original Bible (and whether such a thing even exists): We don’t know. But to all scholars and Biblical archaeologists we can offer this advice: Keep digging!
​

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided us with MSS which predate the Masoretic text (compiled in about AD 700) by about 1,000 years. Hebrew scholar, Millar Burrows, stated that 'It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.... "Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition"' (Burrows in Geisler & Nix 1986, A general introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, pp. 366-367)

As to the value of the LXX when compared with the Masoretic text, Charles F Pfeiffer (former professor of ancient literatures at Central Michigan University) stated:

Although many of the Qumran Biblical texts are not yet available to the student, the information which we now have has caused the whole question of the relationship of the Septuagint to the traditional Masoretic text of the Old Testament to be reopened. Competent scholars have indicated their belief that the Septuagint is a literal translation of a Hebrew text in some respects different from the traditional one. This does not, of course, deny that the Septuagint, like translations in all ages, expresses the theological viewpoint of its translators in many areas, but it does insist that the Septuagint is a witness to an ancient text of the Old Testament as well (1969. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Baker Book House, p. 106).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Very good article. The LXX is not perfect, but it maintains many faithful readings and I really don't know why the Protestant movement is so wedded to the MT.

I'm pleased you found the article helpful.

The Masoretic Text, based on the discoveries from Qumran, has now been shown to be a relatively stable text after a period of 1,000 years (Dead Sea Scrolls prior to MT). It is now considered to be one of the most important contributions of the scrolls that they have demonstrated this stability of the Masoretic text.

However, it seems that the LXX could be based on earlier Hebrew texts than those found at Qumran, thus causing some 'heartache' for those who want to compare the LXX with the MT (and Qumran MSS).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

One's as good as the other, the BEST "Manuscript" is the one you'll actually bother to READ.

 

[James Is Back]

One's as good as the other, the BEST "Manuscript" is the one you'll actually bother to READ.

That's if you can read any MSS

 

[OzSpen]

That's if you can read any MSS

Well said, James.

What are the literacy levels in your country and mine? The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for literacy in the 2011-2012 year were:

Around 3.7% (620,000) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years had literacy skills at Below Level 1, a further 10% (1.7 million) at Level 1, 30% (5.0 million) at Level 2, 38% (6.3 million) at Level 3, 14% (2.4 million) at Level 4, and 1.2% (200,000) at Level 5.
​

The explanation of levels of difficulty is HERE. Half of 15-74 year olds in our smallest state, Tasmania, are 'functionally illiterate' (source).

Here's a 'list of countries by literacy rate'.

What was the level of literacy in the first century? It's difficult to assess definitively, but here's one view about Israel in the first century:

'Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past' (source).
​

Oz

 

[miamited]

Well said, James.

What are the literacy levels in your country and mine? The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for literacy in the 2011-2012 year were:

Around 3.7% (620,000) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years had literacy skills at Below Level 1, a further 10% (1.7 million) at Level 1, 30% (5.0 million) at Level 2, 38% (6.3 million) at Level 3, 14% (2.4 million) at Level 4, and 1.2% (200,000) at Level 5.
​

The explanation of levels of difficulty is HERE. Half of 15-74 year olds in our smallest state, Tasmania, are 'functionally illiterate' (source).

Here's a 'list of countries by literacy rate'.

What was the level of literacy in the first century? It's difficult to assess definitively, but here's one view about Israel in the first century:

'Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past' (source).
​

Oz

Hi Ozpen,

I may be wrong but I don't think James was referring to literacy levels per se, but rather the number of people who would be able to read the original MSS of the Hebrew texts of the Scriptures.

It has long been my understanding that Jews especially, have always held the education of their children in very high regard. God himself commanded His people to 'teach' their children and to 'write' things down. I believe the idea of society having some lesser abilities, as a whole, to read written communication between people is not well founded in truth. It generally stems from an 'evolutionary' understanding of man's path rather than a 'God created' understanding.

Adam and Eve could communicate. They didn't have to 'learn' some form of communication. God gave their brains the ability to communicate just as He gave bird brains the ability to 'know' that they were to fly south for the winter. I'm not one who agrees that each creature was created with a blank slate brain and had to learn how and where to forage for food and shelter, etc.

I believe that God gave each fully formed and mature creature a fully formed and mature brain with already 'loaded', if you will, information about certain basic functions. From those fully formed and 'loaded' mature creatures came young ones which did need some teaching and training.

Scientists have done some great studies on birds and their innate desire to head south for winter. They have taken mature birds and set them in a closed space where the birds have no 'signs' to determine compass points, and yet at the appointed time they all orient south. They have taken young birds and removed them from their parents and yet, they also orient south at the appointed time of the season. It's really quite fascinating in our understanding of the knowledge and abilities that God gave each creature in order that it may live.

God made man to be able to communicate with another from the very beginning. It is an innate desire for which our brains were 'given' certain abilities to attain by our Creator, our Father, our God. Because He loves us.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again ozpen,

Further, one needs to understand 'what' it is that literacy tests confirm. They do not generally confirm anyone's ability to just read, but to read at a man-determined certain level of understanding.

We can take a glass and fill it with water and set a placard in front of the glass that says 'water' and pretty much every candidate, when asked what is in the glass, will say water. When asked how they know this they will generally reply that it is because the placard says so.

However, when you then give them some line or paragraph of text with some more difficult words that require a somewhat higher level of comprehension, then you begin to see a falling away in the numbers. This doesn't really determine anyone's ability to read, but rather one's ability to read and comprehend a more difficult passage of written communication.

Just as your 'proof' allows. Around 3.7 percent of Australians cannot read and comprehend level 1 written communication, one needs to ask, "what is level 1 communication?" Is that where a person is asked to read the word 'cat' and know what it means to refer to?

So, before we throw out literacy tests as examples of people's ability to read, we need to know a bit more about what the different levels are asking of the subject. Is it as basic as showing the word 'dog' and getting the reply that that is a four legged furry pet? Or is it rather a slightly more difficult statement or paragraph that the subject is asked to read and explain what it means?

Here's a basic first grade reading comprehension test:

http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/reading-comp/1st-ball-for-my-dog_TZZMD.pdf

Notice that some of the questions are asking the subject to make logical conclusions from the text that are not actually given in the text. The text never says that there are three balls but tells of three different balls and then requires the reader to go back and use basic math skills to 'count' the number of balls that are mentioned. Most of this really doesn't test one's ability to 'read', but rather one's ability to read and comprehend what they are reading and then give some explanations about the text.

We all have different abilities in this matter of comprehension, but most of us can read. We can look at a word, say what the word is, and describe what the word conveys. I can read a computer engineering textbook, but I'd be hard pressed to understand and explain what it was telling me about working with computer languages or switches. So, in this case, I can read just fine, but I have little comprehension of the underlying instruction.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Is Back]

I was referring reading any MSS in its original language.