SavedByGraceThruFaith
Regular Member
I never said those two statements so you are falsely accusing,
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The logic you use is only simple in the sense that you could describe a man of limited intelligence as being "simple"
I don't see any heresy, nor did the early Church nor the Jews before Christ
So you believe trusting God to be merciful is heresy?
You believe sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others is heresy?
I never said those two statements so you are falsely accusing,
The Dead Sea Scrolls give an interesting piece of information of the differences. There is some passages of the Bible in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the translation given to those passages is closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic.
It is not a question of Greek texts vs Hebrew texts then but a difference in the original Hebrew texts themselves that provided the seventy scholars with their original Hebrew drafts for translation in the first place.
The rationalization of the origins of the Bible are markedly different than those for the Koran. For the Koran it is a legendary account of angelic dictation and a faithful copy of the angels message to the dot and to the iota. There is no human participation involved outside of the mechanics of writing down the dictation.
For the Bible, humans participating fully in the making of the texts. The text were inspired by the Divine, but very much a human endeavor at every stage of the way.
God is perfect. Humans are not. The jots and the iotas develop variations in every successive recopying of the texts.
Variations are to be expected then, because the process is subject to historic processes rather than being perfect, like only legendary accounts can be.
Both versions of the Bible are valid because the original source of both is divinely inspired.
What then is the alleged heresy?
And the Israelites atoned for sin with animals, and some with grain. What of it?
So Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of the living?Atoning for the sins of the dead is the major heresy in verse 45
They raised a significant amount which means that each person had to make quite a large financial sacrifice which demonstrates the sincerity and level of concern they had for the souls of their fallen brothers. They continued to love their brethren despite their having died and despite their having sinned greatly. Is this not in keeping with Christ's commandment to love one another as He loved us?The second is the implication of using money to atone for sins in verse 43
So Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of the living?
They raised a significant amount which means that each person had to make quite a large financial sacrifice which demonstrates the sincerity and level of concern they had for the souls of their fallen brothers. They continued to love their brethren despite their having died and despite their having sinned greatly. Is this not in keeping with Christ's commandment to love one another as He loved us?
Their atonement both prefigures Christ's atonement and participates in the same.Jesus Christ sacrifice atones for all the sins of believers
But how does a man, who is not Jesus Christ, atone fir the sins of the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45?
Their atonement both prefigures Christ's atonement and participates in the same.
The MT is not a translation. And even though the LXX is a translation, it comes from a Hebrew text that agrees with it. So it shouldn't be considered a translation either.
That depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable.
These are the possibilities:
1. MT is the word of God (so Jerome: Hebraica Veritas).
2. LXX is the word of God (so the Orthodox Church).
3. Both are the word of God (so Augustine)
4. None are the word of God (maybe you go with the Samaritan Pentateuch instead or something else?).
Again, depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable. The NT authors don't always quote from the Septuagint. In Matthew, for instance, the version of Isaiah that is quoted everywhere throughout represents no version of Isaiah that now exists. The Septuagint version of Daniel was almost entirely lost. The version of Daniel that now exists in virtually every manuscript in existenceincluding all Septuagint manuscriptsis not the Septuagint of Daniel, but is the Greek text called "Theodotion". In fact, there is a very real question whether we even have the same LXX as it originally existed. Most manuscripts of the LXX were altered to conform in some way to the Masoretic Text. And every manuscript we have of the LXX is different. In order to reconstruct what the original LXX was, scholars usually depend upon a huge amount of textual criticism. First, they assume that if every manuscript agrees, that agreement is the original LXX. Then where there are disagreements, they use surviving pieces of Origen's Hexapla and the translation of the Hexapla into Syriac (called the Syro-Hexapla) to reconstruct it.
Although I haven't decided yet what I think of the LXX, I do believe the MT is the word of God. The same consonantal text that I use every day existed at the time of Christ and before Christ. We have found copies of what is called the pre-Masoretic text (identical to the Masoretic Text except that it doesn't have vowel points or accentuation marks) among the Dead Sea Scrolls and outside of Qumran in other caves around the Dead Sea. So if there is a Christian bias, it would have to be limited to the vowel points, which anyone can ignore easily enough (if they know Hebrew).
Also, we have several witnessesincluding witnesses from the first century like Josephuswho said there were copies of the scrolls in the temple. These would have been considered the official scriptures. And they would have been Hebrew. One reason why the Masoretic Text hasn't changed since before the time of Christ (except for the addition of vowels and accents) is probably because the scrolls in the temple were used to correct errant copies. That's what Jewish tradition claims. And the evidence would seem to support it.
The only copies of scripture that are different from the Masoretic Text are those that were at places like Qumran, which considered the temple an abomination (and, thus, wouldn't have been having its scriptures corrected to the official copies in the temple) and those that were formed in foreign countries (like the LXX in Egypt). Every Hebrew quotation in every Jewish writing after the first century agrees with the Masoretic Text. Every one. Whether Rabbinic or otherwise. It is only in areas where Hebrew wasn't used as much (or where Greek and Aramaic were used more) that the Masoretic Text wasn't used. In those cases, the LXX was sometimes used. Sometimes the Targumim were used. Sometimes other Greek versions, different from the LXX, were used.
A very well-researched and cogent argument.
Thanks.
Here's an online translation. I neither approve nor disapprove of it. I simply know of its existence. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
How so? I've been reading from the MT for years and I haven't picked up on any anti-Christian bias.
It also seems to me that, with the MT being the official canon of Judaism, that the Jews would have had a vested interest in continuing their traditions to maintain and/or restore the texts as closely to the original Hebrew as possible.
It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.
But you did not address the 2 heresies in just this passage from the Septuagint.
The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.
Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.
[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
How so? I've been reading from the MT for years and I haven't picked up on any anti-Christian bias.
It also seems to me that, with the MT being the official canon of Judaism, that the Jews would have had a vested interest in continuing their traditions to maintain and/or restore the texts as closely to the original Hebrew as possible.
Actually the MT is a revision; and the LXX is a translation, and should be considered one. I'm not sure how you can view it any other way.The MT is not a translation. And even though the LXX is a translation, it comes from a Hebrew text that agrees with it. So it shouldn't be considered a translation either.
The only thing I would say you got wrong here is that Jerome didn't have a copy of the MT to translate from as it didn't exist yet. The MT is a revision that came into play between the 6th and 10th centuries AD. What Jerome had were various scrolls from proto-Masoretic Hebrew, and Aramaic.That depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable.
These are the possibilities:
1. MT is the word of God (so Jerome: Hebraica Veritas).
2. LXX is the word of God (so the Orthodox Church).
3. Both are the word of God (so Augustine)
4. None are the word of God (maybe you go with the Samaritan Pentateuch instead or something else?).
You are correct that the original LXX version was rejected by the early Church, for the more agreeable to the Hebrew version written by Theodotian. But there does exist the LXX version of Daniel, and a translation of it can be found in the NETS translation of the LXX which you can read here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf Nice setup in that they have the original LXX version side by side with Theodotian's version.Again, depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable. The NT authors don't always quote from the Septuagint. In Matthew, for instance, the version of Isaiah that is quoted everywhere throughout represents no version of Isaiah that now exists. The Septuagint version of Daniel was almost entirely lost. The version of Daniel that now exists in virtually every manuscript in existenceincluding all Septuagint manuscriptsis not the Septuagint of Daniel, but is the Greek text called "Theodotion". In fact, there is a very real question whether we even have the same LXX as it originally existed. Most manuscripts of the LXX were altered to conform in some way to the Masoretic Text. And every manuscript we have of the LXX is different. In order to reconstruct what the original LXX was, scholars usually depend upon a huge amount of textual criticism. First, they assume that if every manuscript agrees, that agreement is the original LXX. Then where there are disagreements, they use surviving pieces of Origen's Hexapla and the translation of the Hexapla into Syriac (called the Syro-Hexapla) to reconstruct it.
Not quite identical. There are many passages that align with the LXX, instead of the Masoretic text; which most scholars have come to the conclusion that the OT has went though more than a few revisions over it's history before being cemented by the Masorites between the 6th and 10th centuries.Although I haven't decided yet what I think of the LXX, I do believe the MT is the word of God. The same consonantal text that I use every day existed at the time of Christ and before Christ. We have found copies of what is called the pre-Masoretic text (identical to the Masoretic Text except that it doesn't have vowel points or accentuation marks) among the Dead Sea Scrolls and outside of Qumran in other caves around the Dead Sea. So if there is a Christian bias, it would have to be limited to the vowel points, which anyone can ignore easily enough (if they know Hebrew).
The problem here is that, it is generally believed that most of the temple scrolls were destroyed in the destruction of the temple. So the evidence doesn't support it fully.Also, we have several witnessesincluding witnesses from the first century like Josephuswho said there were copies of the scrolls in the temple. These would have been considered the official scriptures. And they would have been Hebrew. One reason why the Masoretic Text hasn't changed since before the time of Christ (except for the addition of vowels and accents) is probably because the scrolls in the temple were used to correct errant copies. That's what Jewish tradition claims. And the evidence would seem to support it.
You also have other witnesses as well that would disagree with this assumption. The point being that it isn't as clear cut as many want to believe.The only copies of scripture that are different from the Masoretic Text are those that were at places like Qumran, which considered the temple an abomination (and, thus, wouldn't have been having its scriptures corrected to the official copies in the temple) and those that were formed in foreign countries (like the LXX in Egypt). Every Hebrew quotation in every Jewish writing after the first century agrees with the Masoretic Text. Every one. Whether Rabbinic or otherwise. It is only in areas where Hebrew wasn't used as much (or where Greek and Aramaic were used more) that the Masoretic Text wasn't used. In those cases, the LXX was sometimes used. Sometimes the Targumim were used. Sometimes other Greek versions, different from the LXX, were used.
I think that you are still confusing the LXX or Alexandrian canon with what is called the Palestinian canon, which all evidence points to was still in fluctuation during Christ and at least four centuries after Christ among the Jewish Rabbis. Oddly enough though the lists of those 22 books which is really 22 scrolls, also include the Epistle of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch, and yet these were later rejected by the Masorites. But since the last I checked we are all Christian, should we really be looking to Jewish Rabbis as authoritative after they rejected Christ?The myth is to think LXX viewed its detero books as the same as its 22 books. It didn't, per Josephus.
Maccabees is not considered divine by them or early Christians (Melito for example).
I learned about that recently. One example is Deut 32:8, which makes much more sense in the LXX than in the MT. Newer translations now tend to use the LXX version.The Dead Sea Scrolls give an interesting piece of information of the differences. There is some passages of the Bible in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the translation given to those passages is closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic.
I think that you are still confusing the LXX or Alexandrian canon with what is called the Palestinian canon,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?