Christian/Muslim ThreadsA Logical Problem in the BibleWell, you didn't answer nothing actually. You just proved my point here. And indeed the meaning has changed. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Even Isaiah. Also, it is not merely misspelled words but rather as could be found in Genesis, whole sentences do not even exist. But, let's get back to the original point here. Paul was referring to the Septuagint and during that time of Paul the Septuagint was complete including the Apocrypha. SO when I referred to the Septuagint I knew that Paul was referring to the whole Septuagint. Yet, such a translation is called inspired by God. Is the Septuagint the literal word of God? Of course not . According to the Protestants, it is the MT. So the question that holds, why was Paul referring to the Apocrypha that is not the word of God? As we see from my post above, he was referring to the scripture owned by Timothy, but we also note that other texts have not been even written and it was not called scripture of God not until your church leaders decided to do so. Also, I would like you to note that according to the Jewish Talmud, only the five books of Moses were translated by Jewish Rabbis. Other books were translated by non-Jewish which actually arise another question. Umm... Were those pagans who translated the rest of the Septuagint also inspired by God? So I take it you acknowledge that errors exist in the Bible? And if you do you acknowledge that it is not the literal word of God? Secondly, to refute your argument that the MT existed, the Jew did not start using it until 110 AD when supposedly all NT writings were present. Most of it was even written after Jesus' departure which you link fail to provide and assert that the MT was actually written during that time, rather it was always updated until 100-200 AD. Read the following please: the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint? There is evidence (about 500-100 B.C.) to show that the manuscripts most approved and most widely diffused contained many verbal differences. And these variations are not to be charged, as was formerly done, to carelessness or willfulness on the part of the Hellenistic Jews and Samaritans, but are explained by the lesser importance attached to exact uniformity of text and to the existence of mistakes in the current copies. And when the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree in good readings, and still oftener in bad ones, against the Masoretic text, it may be concluded that these readings were spread by many copies current among the Palestinian Jews, and are therefore not to be regarded as offensive. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Judaism was subject to the authority of the rabbis, it became possible to prepare a uniform standard text, although this idea was not realized until many generations had worked upon it. The Greek versions of the second century had already fewer variations from the Masoretic text. Still nearer the latter text is the Hebrew text of Origen and Jerome. The Talmud itself bears witness, by the agreement of its Biblical quotations with the Masoretic text that the consonantal text was practically finished before the Talmudic era closed. It is not possible to say upon what principles the text was treated; but the way in which the custodians presented the individuality of the several authors, books, and periods is remarkable, and proves that intentional and arbitrary changes of the text were not made by these critics. That they changed passages for dogmatic, especially for Antichristian, reasons, as has sometimes been asserted, has long ago been acknowledged to be a 96 baseless accusation. Where they mention changes, they make clear than they followed the testimony of manuscripts, the number of which was probably not very great. The fact that in the first centuries after Christ the text approximates our present Masoretic reading shows that a certain recension became authoritative which was possible only after a certain manuscript had been taken as the norm. Of such a standard codex, copies could easily be made, or one could correct his own copies in accordance with it. Scholars like Olshausen and Lagarde speak therefore of some such archetype, which was slavishly followed in every respect. The critical apparatus of the time is concealed in dissociated fragments in the later Masorah, but can not be separated from the other matter. The Talmud and the older midrashim allow a little insight into the critical efforts of the time. Thus mention is made of the "corrections of the scribes," of the "removals of the scribes" (meaning that in five passages a falsely introduced "and" was removed), and of the points in the Hebrew text over certain words to show that these words were critically suspected, such as the inverted "nun," Num. x, 35, and the three kinds of reading (keri; see KERI AND KETHIBH), viz., "read but not written," "written but not read," and "read [one way] but written [another]." The three kinds of reading have, it is true, for the most part only exegetical value; e.g., they give the usual instead of the unusual grammatical forms, show where one must understand or omit a word, or where the reader should use a euphemistic expression for the coarse one in the text; they are therefore scholia upon the text. It is possible that these "readings" are also fragments of the critical apparatus. However this may be, it is evident that at that period the text was fixed and that the matter in question concerned only subordinate details of the text. Taken from http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/ency ... .lxiii.htm The third period of the textual history is usually reckoned as extending from the sixth until the eleventh Christian century (when Jewish learning was transferred from the East to North Africa and Spain); it embraces the age of the Masoretes proper, and has for the Bible text in general the same importance as the Talmudic period had for the law. The efforts of the scholars to fix the reading and understanding of the sacred text were overshadowed somewhat by the study of the Talmud. After the close of the Talmud the work was resumed and cultivated in Babylonia and Palestine (at Tiberias). In both schools the work of former generations was continued; but the Palestinians, who acted more independently than the more Talmudically inclined Babylonians, finally got the victory over the Babylonian school. In both schools they were no longer satisfied with a mere oral transmission of rules and regulations, but committed them to writing. There is no continuous history of the men of the Masorah and of the progress of their work preserved; but the marginal notes in ancient Biblemanuscripts and the fragments of other works show that the oldest Masoretes can be traced back to the eighth century. The main effort of this period (as the name Masorcah, "tradition," indicates; see MASORAH) was to collect and to write down the exegetico-critical material of the former period; and this makes sufficiently clear the one part of their work. But the Masoretes also added some new matter. Anxiously following the footsteps of the older critics in their effort to fix and to guard the traditional text, they laid down more minute rules of a linguistic and grammatical character, and in this respect a great part of the contents of the Masorah is indeed new. Also, I would recommend a book called "The Biblical texts" In conclusion we now know for a fact that Paul was referring to a scripture different in every aspect from every sect. As a matter of fact, it does not matter what Paul was referring to as it would cause the same problem and would be faced with the fact that the literal word of God was not kept. Again we turn our sight now to Paul claiming inspiration :
Not Answered. Paul did not know what he was talking about. Such a man using the word "I think" as an inspired word of God is just odd. Where do you ever hear God saying "I think"? And if Paul claimed that whatever he was writing was his own opinion then why is it part of your scripture? You are still faced with many variances between the MT and the LXX. An MT that was not even complete at the time of Paul, and a Greek student studying a complete Septuagint (which of course had to be edited later). If they tell you that the MT is similar to the DSS, they are simply liars. Eventhough much of the meaning is preserved the literal word is not the same which would bring us to a wider thing to think about. Does the literal word of God in its original form exist anymore? And if not what are the consequences of such an affirmation? The problem is deeper than you think. We are faced with major problems as everything you have quoted affirms that the literal word of God isn’t available anymore. The variances between the Septuagint and the MT are undeniable. The MT is not even what Paul used to see if we are to consider that he was referring to it, and if he was referring to the Septuagint then you still have another problem where meaning actually changed and verses and whole sentences are missing. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame