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

[OzSpen]

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

Ted,

I provided a link to tell what literacy Level 1 is. Seems as though you might have overlooked this. That link tells us that:

Below Level 1 (lower than 176)

The tasks at this level require the respondent to read brief texts on familiar topics to locate a single piece of specific information. There is seldom any competing information in the text and the requested information is identical in form to information in the question or directive. The respondent may be required to locate information in short continuous texts. However, in this case, the information can be located as if the text were non-continuous in format. Only basic vocabulary knowledge is required, and the reader is not required to understand the structure of sentences or paragraphs or make use of other text features. Tasks below Level 1 do not make use of any features specific to digital texts.

Level 1 (176 to 225)

Most of the tasks at this level require the respondent to read relatively short digital or print continuous, non-continuous, or mixed texts to locate a single piece of information that is identical to or synonymous with the information given in the question or directive. Some tasks, such as those involving non-continuous texts, may require the respondent to enter personal information onto a document. Little, if any, competing information is present. Some tasks may require simple cycling through more than one piece of information. Knowledge and skill in recognising basic vocabulary determining the meaning of sentences, and reading paragraphs of text is expected.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I was referring reading any MSS in its original language.

James,

So are you referring to people of the era of the MSS and their literacy levels - ability to read MSS of the original languages?

 

[James Is Back]

James,

So are you referring to people of the era of the MSS and their literacy levels - ability to read MSS of the original languages?

No I was referring to people today who without learning Biblical languages won't be able to read any MSS.

 

[OzSpen]

No I was referring to people today who without learning Biblical languages won't be able to read any MSS.

That applies to the majority of Christians today. However, we are blessed in the English-speaking world by having so many excellent translations. A comparison of 3-4 of those translations (all available online) tells us the main translation difficulties of a given passage.

 

[James Is Back]

That applies to the majority of Christians today. However, we are blessed in the English-speaking world by having so many excellent translations. A comparison of 3-4 of those translations (all available online) tells us the main translation difficulties of a given passage.

I agree. That is why I always suggest having at least 2 or more translations.

However I plan on learning the Biblical languages as Textual Criticism is one of the studies I'm interested in.

 

[OzSpen]

I agree. That is why I always suggest having at least 2 or more translations.

However I plan on learning the Biblical languages as Textual Criticism is one of the studies I'm interested in.

I highly recommend learning the biblical languages if you have the desire, but be warned. It's not an easy road and takes lots of study; learning words, grammar and syntax; exams, participation, etc.

Do you have access to a classroom situation near to where you live where you could learn the languages? I'm not a great fan of online teaching of Greek and Hebrew. There are far too many nuances of language that can be missed in a distance education or online format.

Just my thoughts.

Oz

 

[James Is Back]

I highly recommend learning the biblical languages if you have the desire, but be warned. It's not an easy road and takes lots of study; learning words, grammar and syntax; exams, participation, etc.

Do you have access to a classroom situation near to where you live where you could learn the languages? I'm not a great fan of online teaching of Greek and Hebrew. There are far too many nuances of language that can be missed in a distance education or online format.

Just my thoughts.

Oz

I wish there was so I'm forced to go the distance learning route.

 

[miamited]

Ted,

I provided a link to tell what literacy Level 1 is. Seems as though you might have overlooked this. That link tells us that:
In Christ,
Oz

Hi ozpen,

No, I read it. Unfortunately, I didn't come away with much information from the description. It doesn't actually give any examples of what might be laid in front of someone to read, but merely gives some general ideas of the kinds of things that are considered in building the text in question. Further, my question is: Are the people who are given this text not able to read it. By that I mean they cannot make the sounds of the words that are in the text, or is there some further questioning to determine whether they fully understood what they read.

As I gave in my example, which contained the actual text in question, there are a lot of questions that the reader is asked that don't really have to do with being able to read, but rather with being able to form conclusions and make logical 'guesses' from the text. For example, one of the questions asked of the reader in the text I showed was, what color would the next ball be? Someone unable to answer that question correctly wouldn't lack the ability to read, but would lack the ability to know the basic color groups. I say this because I'm guessing that the next ball color would 'logically' be the next color of the basic color wheel. But, there is no real reason to assume that the next ball would be that color unless you know that the point of the story is to explain the basic color wheel. I rather imagine that there are a lot of people who don't know the basic four color wheel, but can read perfectly fine. In truth, if the author wanted to continue the story they could say the next ball was magenta, if the story is just about colored balls.

So, I will just repeat, that often times these 'literacy' tests don't really test one's ability to just read, say the words along a line of type, but to comprehend the text and make further assessments from the text that are not necessarily a part of the text. As in my example, if I want to know if someone can read, then I put a glass of water in front of them with a sign that says water and ask them what the sign says. If they tell me the sign says 'water', then I know they can read.

So, if you'd like to really drive your point home, how about finding the actual text used to determine these various reading levels and let us test them. God will make wise men to stumble and wise men will make the simple to stumble.

Just be careful in 'assuming' that some literacy test actually is testing reading ability and not comprehension and understanding ability. Reading is merely the ability to voice a string of letters together as a word. Comprehension and understanding is generally the ability to take a whole bunch of words in a sentence, paragraph or story and determining one's understanding of all of the words that are read. This is why it is generally referred to in schools as 'reading comprehension'. It is not just reading, but the ability to understand what is being read.

And, as shown in my example, some of the measurements to determine comprehension can call for other knowledge than just reading. To know how many balls were mentioned in the example one must be able to do basic math, not reading.

Yes, I will allow that there are some wholly unlearned people who cannot read their own basic language, but I think that number is far less than your test allows and probably close to zero in ancient Israel. Consider that all those in the 3.7% group can read, they just read at a less than grade 1 level.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi ozpen,

So, in my previous post to you: Were you able to read it? Were you able to comprehend my point? They are two separate questions.

Again God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[OzSpen]

Hi ozpen,
Just be careful in 'assuming' that some literacy test actually is testing reading ability and not comprehension and understanding ability. Reading is merely the ability to voice a string of letters together as a word. Comprehension and understanding is generally the ability to take a whole bunch of words in a sentence, paragraph or story and determining one's understanding of all of the words that are read. This is why it is generally referred to in schools as 'reading comprehension'. It is not just reading, but the ability to understand what is being read.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That's not my assumption.

You stated, 'Comprehension and understanding is generally the ability....'. I do hope that is not the grammar with which you agree. It should have been, 'Comprehension and understanding [plural subject] are the abilities...'

However, we need to get back to the OP: Masoretic text or Septuagint: Which one is THE Word of God?

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Textual Criticism is ne of the studies I'm interested in.

I have been doing that (Studying textual criticism) for the last 8 months.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[dysert]

However, we need to get back to the OP: Masoretic text or Septuagint: Which one is THE Word of God?

Oz

Asked and answered pages ago.

 

[DeaconDean]

Interesting reading:

N​

​

​

​

EW LIGHT FROM THE CAVES​

Genesis 1:9​

4QGen​

​

​

​

k​

[h#bG]yh )rtw​

and dr[y land] appeared
LXX​

kai_ sunh/xqh to_ u3dwr to_ u9poka/tw tou= ou0ranou= ei0j taj sunagwgaj
au0tw=n kai_ w!fqh h9 chra/​

(​

​

​

​

≈h#byh )rtw Mhywqm l) Mym#h txtm Mymh wwqyw)
and the waters below heaven gathered into their gathering place and dry
land appeared
MT/SP: lacking​

The new reading from 4QGen​

​

​

​

k [= 4Q10] shows what the best textual critics have long surmised, that the textual plus in LXX at the end of Gen 1:9 stems from an ancient Hebrew text that differed from MT.8 The chief remaining question is whether the longer or the shorter reading is to be preferred. The editor of the Qumran fragment, James Davila, argues that a simple scribal error can account for the shorter reading in MT:
​

The phrase was lost in the manuscript tradition represented by [MT] by
haplography. The first Hebrew word of the missing phrase can be retroverted from the Greek as​

​

​

​

wwqyw, “and [the waters] were gathered.” The first word of v. 10 is )rqyw “and [God] called.” The scribe’s eye skipped from the first letter-cluster—qyw to the second, leaving out the intervening material.9
​

In this scenario, we can readily understand the difference between the variant readings of Gen 1:9. The other possibility, that the longer reading is a harmonizing expansion of the originally short text, is far less likely, since it does not conform to the ordinary procedures of such scribal harmonizations. Furthermore, the style of the longer reading is fully consistent with the prose style of Genesis 1.​

​

​

​

10 In this plus in LXX, now partially preserved in 4QGenk, we probably have the original text of Gen 1:9, which was accidentally lost by scribal error in the textual tradition ancestral to MT.​

8. Note the obvious Hebraism in Greek​

​

​

​

au)tw~n referring to plural Mym rather than
singular u#dwr, as noted by Julius Wellhausen and others; see Ronald S. Hendel, The
Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1998), 26. On the practice of retroverting Greek readings into Hebrew, see the
methodological cautions and guidelines in Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the​

Septuagint in Biblical Research (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997).

9. James R. Davila, “New Qumran Readings for Genesis One,” in​

​

​

​

Of Scribes and
Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to
John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and
T. H. Tobin; College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1990), 11.​

10. For full discussion of these issues, see Hendel, Text, 25–27.

The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ​

​

​

​

Volume One, Scripture and the Scrolls​

E​

​

DITED BY JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH, THE SECOND PRINCETON SYMPOSIUM ON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS,
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS​

WACO, TEXAS

ⓒ 2006 by Baylor University Press​

Waco, Texas 76798

CHAPTER SEVEN​

QUMRAN AND A NEW EDITION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE​

Ronald S. Hendel, New Light From the Caves, p. 151-52, n. 8-10

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

duplicate n/p

 

[Jack Koons]

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.

Please allow me to "summarize" what was stated prior to the above post, Quality is totally dependent on antiquity, but since man got his dirty hands all over God's perfect words, God's words are now corrupt, because God apparently doesn't care enough about His words to keep them pure. But don't worry, even though sinful men corrupted the words of God, God has other sinful men working on doing the best they can to fix the problem; so even though the words have been corrupted, they are still the pure words of God!

Think about it!!!
Jack

 

[JLR1300]

So the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the Hebrew. So how could the Septuagint be the one we look to as the more authoritative?

 

[Jack Koons]

So the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the Hebrew. So how could the Septuagint be the one we look to as the more authoritative?

Long story short ... Textual critics say so. Even something ALWAYS gets lost I'm the translation (according to them); textual critics have the final word, on what we can trust, and what is the real word.

Jack

 

[JLR1300]

Long story short ... Textual critics say so. Even something ALWAYS gets lost I'm the translation (according to them); textual critics have the final word, on what we can trust, and what is the real word.

Jack

Maybe things will change. I am assuming that they don't trust the Hebrew because the oldest manuscript is like from the 900's a.d. whereas the septuagint is older... (that is my guess) but recently in the dead sea scrolls it was found that the Hebrew manuscripts from there are dated at about 200 years before Christ and by comparing them they show that the later manuscripts from the 900s are extremely reliable... just a couple of misspelled words and such. At least I read that in an article today somewhere. Anyway... whatever.

 

[DeaconDean]

As recent as 1885, in an article entitled "Textual Criticism in the Old Testament 1"

We know the Messorites admit to working with copies that were corrupted to begin with. (cf. The Massoretic Text)

H. P. Smith writes:

Some facts go to show the Massoretic text was not regarded as absolutely perfect even by those who took such good care of it. The existance of the notes called Q'ri is one of these facts. Over two thousand words in the text of the Old Testament are corrected by the Q'ri...Besides (as we know) in a number of places words not in the text are inserted by marginal notes, and in others the margin directs that words in the text be omitteed in the reading...even the reverential treatment of Jewish grammarians discovers errors of transmission.

The inquiry up tot he present point discovers that through the Massoretic method has preserved for us a text of great antiquity, that text has nevertheless suffered not a little in which the period which elapsed between the original writting and its definite settlement in the present form.

We knew 130 years ago the MT was corrupted.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Koons]

As recent as 1885, in an article entitled "Textual Criticism in the Old Testament 1"

We know the Messorites admit to working with copies that were corrupted to begin with. (cf. The Massoretic Text)

H. P. Smith writes:



We knew 130 years ago the MT was corrupted.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Alway remember, when a person uses the word "we", that person is only referring to 1) oneself; and 2) those who agree with that individual. This in no way implies that that "all" people agree with the fore said conclusion.

Jack