Posts by FireNBandits

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Hi Leo

I read about half of the blogs. So far, the posts are about translation, not about textual criticism. Nor the issue of MT versus LXX, though as I read the remainder of the blogs it may become such a discussion. I'm open--just a tad mind you--that perhaps a personal "God" actually "had a hand" in arranging the historical circumstances that led to the Jewish translation and use of the LXX, as well as the adoption of the LXX by Jesus, the apostles, the other NT writers, and the early Church. That is what exercises my mind on this issue. If a personal God exists, then this selection of the LXX is the result of the activity of that personal God as it "works all things together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose."

All of the various historical circumstances that altered Judaism would be included in the Divine activity, in order to being about "the fullness of times" for the advent of the Anointed one.

Quickly, here is an example wherein I think the LXX preserves a much earlier text-type than any now extant, including the Dead Sea Scrolls:

In the English Standard Version of Exodus 4:25-26 we read:

"Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision."

This is a very odd verse, wouldn't you agree? In the LXX it's made a bit clearer. Not clear mind you, but clearer.

"And Zipporah, taking a small sharp stone, circumcised the foreskin of her son. And she fell at his feet and said, 'Stopped is the blood of the circumcision of my male child.' And the angel went forth from him, for she said, 'Stopped is the blood of the circumcision of my male child.' "

Obviously something is still missing, but this is not nearly as bizarre a reading as the MT. The MT at this point is an insult to me on a very visceral--as well as intellectual--level. "It's creepy" as my wife put it. -Martin

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Amnesty, it comes down to "whatever floats your boat." Stamp collecting isn't my thing and I'm too old to thump melon, so I do this stuff. It keeps me from eating *BLEEP* and barking at the Moon. -Martin of the *BLEEPING "BLEEPERS* Class

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Leo! Thanks! Much appreciated young lady. I can get away with calling you "young lady" cuz I'm probaby as old as your parents. -Saint Martin of the Intermediate Class

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Hi Greendawn. Yup. The entire Christian Church...east and west...accepted the deuterocanonicals right up until the protest-ant deformation. Then the deformers decided the church needed to follow the Jews both in their canon and in their text-type. I reject both. Here is an excellent synopsis of the case for inclusion of the deuterocanonicals:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

Or here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Or here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

Lastly:

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

Each of these sites does repeat iformation in the others, BUT each one also has some info the others don't. As for me and my household, we shall serve nachos. -Martin the Magnificent of the Eminently Humble Class.

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Whoa! Terry! You wrote stuff. You said:

I think we need to take a step back.

(Oh man, me too. For me, about thirty years would be way kewl. I liked my early twenties. Maybe you're talking about time travel! I wanna go back and hit Hitler on the head with a floogelhorn when he's about twelve and see if it alters the time line. N stuff. You know?)

You cannot have Greek words without Greek thoughts, ideas, concepts and, ultimately, Greek RELIGIOUS VIEWS.

("When in Rome do as the Romans do, but when in Greece DO IT GREEK STYLE! Oh BABY you know what I like! 'Chantilly lace, a pretty face, a pony tail hangin down....')

As the Rabbi down the street said to me one day, "All translations are LIES."

(The rabbi down the street says to ME "You goyiim should all be commited! You're MESHUGGENAH!")

The Septuagint came along at a time when Greek ideas swarmed over Judaism and bowled it on its collective arse.

(Collective arse...hmmm...is that another allusion to Greek style? Ya gotta axe yourself dis question bro...why did GODAMIGHTY [sweet BABY Jesus!] bring about this collective arse-bowling? Hmm. Arse-Bowling For Dollars! I think we have a weiner on our hands!)

This had happened once before when Judiasm was swallowed up by Babylon and spit back out again with a garbled theology.

(Jesus dude..collective arses..Greek style..swallowing and spitting..you need ot GET YOUR BRAIN OUT OF THE GUTTER and into a nunnery. Those chicks are HORNY! Ugly, but HORNY! Are you SURE that this wasn't "God working all things together for the good of them that love him." ? [Romans somewhere...eight?] )

By the time Alexander the Great had conquered all the known world the Jewish religion had been masticated and sewn back together bionically.(Masticating! RIGHT OUT IN PUBLIC! HAVE YOU NO SHAME SIR? NO DECENCY? I'll bet your sister is a THESPIAN and you are yourself a HOMOSAPIEN! "Bionic Jews." I like it. I think it should star Will Smiff. )

Greek language, ideas, religion and PHILOSOPHY overwhelmed what was left.

(Overwhelmed...ummm...oh yeah...overwhelm me baby...yeah...omigod)

The NT is steeped in a Judaism possessed by the demon of Greco-Roman philosophy, religion and reasoning.

(Aw nuts dude, now you're using words like 'steeped." That's for tea and other old bat stuff. I do like Greco-Roman wrestling. Especially with gals! Oh, and since when did "religion" and "reason" become related in any way? )

You don't just translate the Hebrew words into Greek words. You filter old-fashioned (read: failed) ideas into a vibrant and superior mode of thinking.

(I think I'm catching your drift. Dude, go a little easier on the beans and radishes. )

Jesus would not have been viewed as a god-man without the Greek ethos.

(GREEKS have an ETHOS? Man, will the peeps at my wifes Grek Orthodox church be SURPRISED! Thye've been calling it their *CENSORED* for, like, milennia. N stuff.)

Go back and take a good hard look at Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees.

("Good hard." Once again your mind is in the GUTTER, EXACTLY where God put it! I'll have you know I have an actual stone-recording of some of Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees. I'll send some to you for just 999.99 plus postage and handling.)

If you cannot see SOCRATES, then, you are missing the whole point.

(I'm lost..forlorn..woe is me...So-crates is dead n stuff and I can't see him! Wait! I'll have a SEANCE! Those are always way kewl! I'll invite over some chicks and...nah, my wife would never stand for it. Or sit for it. Though she might lay for it. Barking for it is out of the question though. What the hell were we talking about?)

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Hi Country Girl! You're right. I'm wasting space with this drivel. We all are. I have a great idea! Why don't YOU stop posting...you know, set an example...and the rest of us will follow suit. Someday. Like when we're finally DEAD!

Seriously, though, I'm just having fun, same as you are.

Hugs n stuff,
Martin

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hi Narkissos. LOL on the "ontological Trinity" and "kind of nice 'God-man' monster." You wrote: "Only through some mystical approach which allows one to perceive the "Trinity" or the "hypostatic union" from inside, as it were, does the picture make sense again as a mode of self-understanding. And it is just what it was originally about."

Agreed, very much so. Do you meditate? I always come away with the impression you're a fellow meditator. If not, "ya coulda fooled me."

Thanks for your input Narkissos. -Martin

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hi NeedProof. Your comment is fine. You're not off into the ozone or all geeked up over nothing. -Martin

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hi NeedProof. Your comment is fine. You're not off into the ozone or all geeked up over nothing. -Martin

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

FireNBandits

Hello NotaNess

You wrote:

"Excuse my lack of the exact scriptures here. Scripture stated by God, I believe he states there are NO gods before me and NO gods after me. So doesn't this conflict with all the mention of apostles calling Jesus and Satan Gods? (also as taught by the WTS) If scripture is God breathed and/or inspired, why would he go against what he said in the OT? And as for honoring, scripture says to honor Christ the same as honoring God and John 1:1...it's illogical that God would make his words here, with such controversy, and with such difficulty to understand the context Would his goal be that he didn't want followers to be clear of the Deity of his representaion of Christ as a symbol of his sacrifice to man for sin? ie, he wanted it to be confusing? I can't believe it myself. I think it was meant to be as clear as Christianity has portrayed it, and the way it is most commonly translated."

Thank you for this response. It's a thoughtful and reasonable reply. I'm famiuliar with Isaiah 43:10-11 in which Yahweh purports to say thru "Isaiah" "I am Jehovah. Before me there were no gods formed and neither shall there be after me." However, there are many contexts in which Elohim is in fact plural, and the OT does speak of many gods. In the NT, these gods are transmuted into evil spirits. This is a normal development in religions; to demonize the gods of ones enemies, just as "Allah" is being demonized by evnagelical Christians.

One cannot treat the Bible as a flat surface. Actually, one can, but what one ends up with is almost nonsensical and cetainly unworthy of notice. Also, one cannot simply make a pronouncement that the Bible is the word of God and expect that to be believed uncritically and automatically in this day and age. Educational standards are higher now, and less people are indoctrinated in youth with pro-biblical propaganda. I was not propagandized in youth.

There are many strands of thought in the Bible, both OT and NT. Some diamterically opposed to the other. As a familiar example compare the epistle of James with such epistles of Paul as Galatians and Romans. We have many strands of thought in the NT as to who and what the Logos/Christ is. As Leolaia stressed in this thread it's very important to understand each author on their own merits, not simply to try to work their thoughts into a "system." Theos and it's derivatives are indeed applied to the Father, the Logos/Christ, and even to the Adversary and to humans, As to what each author means when they do that is a matter of study beyond the scope of this post and this reply.

Unfortunately, the Bible is indeed confusing. If it weren't, Christendom would not be divided on every conceivable doctrine imaginable. Yet it is, and each makes a good case from the Bible for their own sects interpretation. The Bible is the sacred writings of European culture. Each culture has their own sacred writings that are as powerful to them as the Bible is to us. It needs to be understood, first and foremost, as a human literary work. Matters of faith need to be held in abeyance, a matter of personal opinion, before clear studies can proceed. Otherwise all we end up with is dogmatic pronouncements that the Bible is God' Word, is inerrant and infallible and clearly teaches XYZ.

There is a great deal of the Bible that, no matter what transaltion you use, is given a particular spin, and is inaccurate besides. That's why I'm tackling Koine Greek. After that (should I live so long!) Biblical Hebrew. I recommend the same to everyone. I'm not here to convince you of any doctrine or theological system. I'm merely asking questions of Leolaia and Narkissos, two scholars from whom I always learn a great deal. Divine blessings to you NotaNess.

Martin