Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

[Carpathian Wolf]

I repeat what is said in youtube as one of the arguments.

Right and I am questioning that logic.

I don't need consolation as I am born again and can give record of the event. Can you?

There was never a time that I can recall when I did not believe. Simple as that. That is my "record of the event." And please, try to keep the argument reasonable and beyond your medieval knee jerk reaction of "I'M SAVED YOU AREN'T SO I'M RIGHT!"

That being the case why did he have to rebuild the Scriptures and why add in what was not there in the first place? And, why did the seventy take them back out?

Why don't you answer my question? If the bible is incomplete and inaccurate in Ezra's time, why would it be better in the hands of the Rabbinical Jews of the medieval era? Ezra was a prophet and perhaps even brought the book back through God's will.

The Bible we have is sufficient for the redemptive work of Jesus Christ so sola scriptura remains perfectly in order.

But you JUST stated that the Bible wasn't even a requirement and what was important is what Christ did, not the bible. You are literally contradicting yourself with every other post.

What would you know of God's church? You can't tell when God changed your life from sin to sinless as you've always been a Christian.

So why is that a bad thing if I have always been Christian?

Regarding vestments show me where in the Bible Christian priests were to wear such?

What difference does it make what priests or whoever wears as clothing?

Regarding icons and idols, that you indulge in them already condemns you despite the puny excuses you give for attending to them.

"Puny excuses" like theological and historical backing such as the fact that God's issue isn't with images but with bad images. Proof is he had issues with the bull, but not with golden angels of statues. Historical backing that the oldest Jewish temples have icons of Moses and Abraham in them.

BUT hey! Who needs history and theology when you can just declare your own salvation as if God and condemn others who disagree with you to hell.

I hope you do remind me because by self admittance you heap burning coals on your head. Finally by agreeing with me you actually admit that you don't really know that your scrolls are the oldest. Thank you!

I agreed with saying that even if the bible did not exist, Christianity and the Church still would. But you as always twist things in your mind to make them make sense. Deep down inside you know your arguments and theology is a contradiction. I'll stick to vestments, you can stick to the Emperor's clothes.

[basics]

" Right and I am questioning that logic."

Carpathian Wolf,

The logic was to see and hear what others had to say on the subject which I did and what surprised me more than anything was the amount of energy and passion put into a Covenant that applies only to them that are still under it. Now is that why you are so concerned by it?

" There was never a time that I can recall when I did not believe. Simple as that. That is my "record of the event." And please, try to keep the argument reasonable and beyond your medieval knee jerk reaction of "I'M SAVED YOU AREN'T SO I'M RIGHT!" "

Yes, you have said that before and it is the very reason that I question you. If it is a medievil reaction of knee jerk quality then why did jesus Christ insist that a man must be regenerate to enter heaven? Is He knee jerking? Obviously the man in question must pass from being one thing to another else Jesus wouldn't have reproved the religious leader for not knowing that. Therefore a regenerate has to know when or how that transition took place simply because of the lifechanging experience.

" Why don't you answer my question? If the bible is incomplete and inaccurate in Ezra's time, why would it be better in the hands of the Rabbinical Jews of the medieval era? Ezra was a prophet and perhaps even brought the book back through God's will."

When have I ever said that the Bible is inaccurate, never? In the case of the enforced diaspora, my understanding is that the Babylonians destroyed much of what was in Israel and Judea including their Scriptures and if they hadn't why would Ezra have to rebuild from what they could find. He added in the Apocrypha which couldn't possibly have been in the originals. But let's bring that up to date and see that us heretics have removed them just as the Jews have done, why? Because they weren't in their originals in their own estimation never mind the fact that you too have the Bible yet put additions into it where none ever were. Do you get the point?

The KJV is the most successful book of any description of all time. It is the same as yours and the Roman Catholic but for the Apocrypha. Why would the Spirit not give yours precedence over the KJV if yours was the correct and undeniable true word of God? And again, why is it being the template for your new version of the Bible? And why do so many people all across the world get saved after hearing or seeing what it contains as was my own experience?

" But you JUST stated that the Bible wasn't even a requirement and what was important is what Christ did, not the bible. You are literally contradicting yourself with every other post."

No, I did not. What I did say was that whatever version of the Old Testament is is a total irrelevence on the basis that Jesus and the writers explain the relevent factors that combine what is in the Old to the authenticity of Jesus Christ whereupon men and women can be saved. Put so that even you might understand, the New Testament in His blood is how God has enabled this wonderful work of His to be seen by us whence once that was not the case. It was always by that Testament that any man could be saved simply because it is a revelationary work to the innermost parts of man.

" So why is that a bad thing if I have always been Christian?"

No-one has always been a Christian and that is the point that Jesus is making in Scripture, the same point He made to the religious guy who secreted himself to speak to Jesus about these things, rebirth being the uttermost important thing He had to say. In the Old Testament all them that were considered righteous before God was because they had Jesus revealed to them and in rebirth they were given faith that what they saw would happen. That was when their lives were changed and why they are written of. Righteous along with four other Hebrew words all mean made perfect and that before God, so we see that justification which is another, comes by God and one does not forget the day that God came into their lives to change them.

" What difference does it make what priests or whoever wears as clothing?"

I would have thought that obvious. If all regenerates are priests, men and women, why then do we not dress similarly? I'll tell you why. There never was any precedent for it in Scripture. It is a separation of these men from the general communion that makes up the body of Christ giving them an air of superiority over the rest, plus the fact it is based on a principle that we who are born again no longer are under. It is written that all regenerates are the Temple of the Most High God.

" "Puny excuses" like theological and historical backing such as the fact that God's issue isn't with images but with bad images. Proof is he had issues with the bull, but not with golden angels of statues. Historical backing that the oldest Jewish temples have icons of Moses and Abraham in them."

The pattern for the Tabernacle was laid down by God with nothing allowed for mistakes, errors or even the mind of man being involved. Every article was a pointer then to Messias. The Temples in their turn were supposed to adhere to the same patterns. When Messias came and did the ordained work He was supposed to do then returning to glory, what the patterns stood for no longer applied, why? Because there is now no need for them because He has finished the work of redemption which they were only type and shadow for. Why you cannot get that I just can't understand since you say you've always been a Christian.

Would it be better to say that you want feet in both camps? Can that happen? No it can't because Jesus insisted that a person be one thing or another but he or she cannot be both. So, if all the accoutrements of the Old Covenant are so important to you, where does that put you according to the word of God? It means that the blood has not been sufficient to either change you or take you under the New Testament in His blood. It leaves you no more than a religious zealot still under Law.

" BUT hey! Who needs history and theology when you can just declare your own salvation as if God and condemn others who disagree with you to hell."

I do condemn you but moreso you condemn yourself because of what is written as being the very words of Jesus Christ. You cannot explain how God changed your life. You think you have always been a Christian but not in the way Jesus Christ says. So, who is right, Jesus or you?

" I agreed with saying that even if the bible did not exist, Christianity and the Church still would. But you as always twist things in your mind to make them make sense. Deep down inside you know your arguments and theology is a contradiction. I'll stick to vestments, you can stick to the Emperor's clothes."

Dear friend, if I thought for a moment that all the teaching that came in the night, night after night, was a load of contradiction believe me I wouldn't give you an inch of time. I debate with you that you might learn something that others from the beginning of the world have learned and have written about. If sticking to the Emperor's clothes means that I go naked, if I'm getting the story correct, then so be it. I'd rather be naked and true to God than wear vestments of a false gospel.

Now, I have got to walk the dog, but as I do so I will pray that your eyes be opened.

[Vhaelor]

Okay then, prove your belief system beyond a shadow of a doubt. Same effect. You can't do it.

i am an atheist, i reject the theistic claims as baseless and utterly absurd. I am responding to a positive assertion, not making an assertion of my own. The burden of proof lies on the theists, not me who rejects their claims, anything else woulf be absurd.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The logic was to see and hear what others had to say on the subject which I did and what surprised me more than anything was the amount of energy and passion put into a Covenant that applies only to them that are still under it. Now is that why you are so concerned by it?

No. It was a stupid argument. Plain and simple, and I addressed it.

Yes, you have said that before and it is the very reason that I question you. If it is a medievil reaction of knee jerk quality then why did jesus Christ insist that a man must be regenerate to enter heaven? Is He knee jerking? Obviously the man in question must pass from being one thing to another else Jesus wouldn't have reproved the religious leader for not knowing that. Therefore a regenerate has to know when or how that transition took place simply because of the lifechanging experience.

No where does it say anyone has to know anything like that. I've always believed in God for as long as I can remember. Yet to you that makes me unChristian.

When have I ever said that the Bible is inaccurate, never? In the case of the enforced diaspora, my understanding is that the Babylonians destroyed much of what was in Israel and Judea including their Scriptures and if they hadn't why would Ezra have to rebuild from what they could find. He added in the Apocrypha which couldn't possibly have been in the originals. But let's bring that up to date and see that us heretics have removed them just as the Jews have done, why? Because they weren't in their originals in their own estimation never mind the fact that you too have the Bible yet put additions into it where none ever were. Do you get the point?

Uh, the OT was still being written during the time. Of course it wouldn't be in "the original." Would the "original" before Moses consist the scripture relevant to Moses? No. So do we exclude anything that has Moses?

Man the level and commitment to mental gymnastics here is astounding. Pure and simple I want to know, was Christ and the Apostle using the Septuagint, or the Masoretic texts. Answer?

The KJV is the most successful book of any description of all time. It is the same as yours and the Roman Catholic but for the Apocrypha. Why would the Spirit not give yours precedence over the KJV if yours was the correct and undeniable true word of God? And again, why is it being the template for your new version of the Bible? And why do so many people all across the world get saved after hearing or seeing what it contains as was my own experience?

Oh my God here we go again. "Since the KJV is the most common one it has to be the right one?" Derp. Poor logic.

No, I did not. What I did say was that whatever version of the Old Testament is is a total irrelevence on the basis that Jesus and the writers explain the relevent factors that combine what is in the Old to the authenticity of Jesus Christ whereupon men and women can be saved. Put so that even you might understand, the New Testament in His blood is how God has enabled this wonderful work of His to be seen by us whence once that was not the case. It was always by that Testament that any man could be saved simply because it is a revelationary work to the innermost parts of man.

Put so that even you can understand, Jesus used the Septuagint. Deal with it.

No-one has always been a Christian and that is the point that Jesus is making in Scripture, the same point He made to the religious guy who secreted himself to speak to Jesus about these things, rebirth being the uttermost important thing He had to say. In the Old Testament all them that were considered righteous before God was because they had Jesus revealed to them and in rebirth they were given faith that what they saw would happen. That was when their lives were changed and why they are written of. Righteous along with four other Hebrew words all mean made perfect and that before God, so we see that justification which is another, comes by God and one does not forget the day that God came into their lives to change them.

Christ is the Son of God, he is God incarnate. I've always believed this. Now why do I need to have had a moment when I didn't believe this if I honestly can't remember that moment? You see how wrapped you are in your little small understanding of what Christianity is?

I would have thought that obvious. If all regenerates are priests, men and women, why then do we not dress similarly? I'll tell you why. There never was any precedent for it in Scripture. It is a separation of these men from the general communion that makes up the body of Christ giving them an air of superiority over the rest, plus the fact it is based on a principle that we who are born again no longer are under. It is written that all regenerates are the Temple of the Most High God.

Gotcha, God only lets trendy dressed people in heaven. SOOOO glad I could learn that from you.

No priest has any "air of superiority." They're servants to God and to the community. Stop confusing your notion of medieval papist clergy with what Orthodox clergy is.

The pattern for the Tabernacle was laid down by God with nothing allowed for mistakes, errors or even the mind of man being involved. Every article was a pointer then to Messias. The Temples in their turn were supposed to adhere to the same patterns. When Messias came and did the ordained work He was supposed to do then returning to glory, what the patterns stood for no longer applied, why? Because there is now no need for them because He has finished the work of redemption which they were only type and shadow for. Why you cannot get that I just can't understand since you say you've always been a Christian.

Would it be better to say that you want feet in both camps? Can that happen? No it can't because Jesus insisted that a person be one thing or another but he or she cannot be both. So, if all the accoutrements of the Old Covenant are so important to you, where does that put you according to the word of God? It means that the blood has not been sufficient to either change you or take you under the New Testament in His blood. It leaves you no more than a religious zealot still under Law.

"I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." ~Christ.

Nice try. Nothing wrong with images, only bad images and idolatry. Those don't exist in Orthodoxy.

I do condemn you but moreso you condemn yourself because of what is written as being the very words of Jesus Christ. You cannot explain how God changed your life. You think you have always been a Christian but not in the way Jesus Christ says. So, who is right, Jesus or you?

Oh I can tell you how God has changed my life. I can't give you a little cliche conversion story because I've always believed in God, but I know God has changed my life and I can attest to that easy. The only reason I even exist is because of God, but not in the "general way." I mean in a very specific way. My mother wasn't suppose to be able to have children and she tried but couldn't. So she prayed to God and said that she doesn't care what the doctors say, that if God wished for there to be a child, there would be. Maybe you can say "oh the doctors in Romania during the 80s were crappy." Yet the same thing happened with my sister 10 years later and American doctors told her she wouldn't be able to have children.

Dear friend, if I thought for a moment that all the teaching that came in the night, night after night, was a load of contradiction believe me I wouldn't give you an inch of time. I debate with you that you might learn something that others from the beginning of the world have learned and have written about. If sticking to the Emperor's clothes means that I go naked, if I'm getting the story correct, then so be it. I'd rather be naked and true to God than wear vestments of a false gospel.

Now, I have got to walk the dog, but as I do so I will pray that your eyes be opened.

Or perhaps you are too late in the game and stubborn to realize it has been a mistake.

[Prodigal]

The condescending promises of prayer for another person's soul is hilarious here. XD

[basics]

" No where does it say anyone has to know anything like that. I've always believed in God for as long as I can remember. Yet to you that makes me unChristian."

Carpathian Wolf,

Just so to remind you what Jesus meant by having to be born again.

Psalm 51:5, " Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Job 14:1-4, " Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble.....Who can bring what is pure from the impure?" Romans 5:19, " For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous." Ephesians 2:3, " We were by nature objects of wrath."

This I believe is something that you cannot grasp and until you do the endless arguments will go on and on. Therefore I have cut your post down to this one thing. That a man must be born again to enter heaven was said as a pre-emptive of the redeeming work yet to be done at the cross. That God could put to the account of all them that were born before Jesus was and is just the same as the accounts of all them born during and after Jesus time. Their regeneration was then and still is at the calling of God therefore it is imperative that to enter heaven one has to be regenerate. In other words a man or a woman has to be brought to the awareness of how unworthy his or her stance is before God and that there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

By the drawing of God grace kicks in and by revelation that person is brought before the bar of justice called conviction whereupon his or her heart is cut to the quick in deep repentance. Just as the Psalmist said, then God seeing the broken and contrite heart, He begins the momentary change of nature. Blessed indeed is he whose sins have been forgiven and from that moment on the old has passed away and new life in Jesus Christ begins. New life cannot begin unless the recipient is aware that he has new life. One cannot be a Christian unless one has experimentally been part of that. That is what the Gospel teaches.

When I was dared to go into that little church at Hopeman, I was a sprinkled member of the church of Scotland, no way thinking myself religious, I paid it lip service only. The thing is I believed in some strange way that I was a Christian when in fact I wasn't. It was only when the Gospel was being preached as it should be that my heart was cut to the quick and I was very much aware of it so much so that I accused the guy who had dared me of talking to the preacher about me. My point is that it is very easy to believe that one believes and still be very wrong. God, the night He changed my life, proved that. I never realised that being born again was something quite extraordinary, but it is and is something one never forgets.

Therefore one can be religious or extremely religious and still not know God. One can spout the dead letter till one is blue in the face and still not know God. But once one is born again according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ then the dead letter becomes the bread of life and there is no greater example of that than in the religious zealot Saul of Tarsus. He believed he was of God and did so with the same zeal that you believe yet until he was put on his knees and made regenerate he could now say how wrong he was. I pray that your day is soon to come.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Right, but who are you to judge me and say what you said? You try to condemn others and condemn only yourself. Arrogance is your downfall.

[basics]

" Right, but who are you to judge me and say what you said? You try to condemn others and condemn only yourself. Arrogance is your downfall."

Carpathian Wolf,

I am not judging you out of something that I feel but of the things that I know to be true and these things lie in what Scripture says. Now if Scripture is not true then why do you moan? You call it arrogance and in that you might as well call God the same because if I am arrogant that comes by what He has written and what I believe wholeheartedly.

When a man denies the originality of sin, he is denying what God says about it. He is denying how far from God he actually is and how deep sin is embedded within himself. That is why only God in justifying any can bring any back to Himself and that by the finished work accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is God, on a cross at Calvary.

Now the Hebrew word, kaphar, is an expression of what must happen within man to reach the point of salvation. We call it repentance but its true meaning is a complete mindset change brought about by God at the drawing of anyone wherein the revealing of Jesus Christ to them opens up how totally unworthy their situation before God is in those moments. This is called conviction.

In those moments when the shame or guilt strikes home and one realises the depth of their sin, the heart breaks asunder as contrition sets in. That is when God is pleased to reveal His saving grace by regeneration. In those moments there is no denial because God has bared all to that broken soul which has no power within itself to resist. It is all of God wherein nothing man can do has any effect. The Spirit enters and faith is given and who would want to resist such a wonderful, marvelous, experience.

The old has now passed away, gone forever, the debt paid in full by that precious blood. A new life begins, one that was bought and paid for by Jesus Christ, and the recipient knows it, feels it, and will never forget it. How can he or she? The Spirit of truth is in them, guiding and teaching them of things appertaining to God. Their fruit is there for all to see and not all apreciate it. To tell of these things is not arrogance, rather the hope that what is to tell will begin the drawing of God to whoever listens.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I am not judging you out of something that I feel but of the things that I know to be true and these things lie in what Scripture says. Now if Scripture is not true then why do you moan? You call it arrogance and in that you might as well call God the same because if I am arrogant that comes by what He has written and what I believe wholeheartedly.

Do you have any idea how delusional this sounds? First off you are not God. Secondly, any sin that you notice in your brother and judge him by, God will see in you and judge you by. Yet you continuously make arrogant proclamations of people's afterlives. You always do this basics. This is your logic of argument:

1. I am saved.

2. You are not.

3. You disagree with me, so you are going to hell.

4. If I am wrong, go back to step 1 and repeat.

That's it. THAT is your logic.

When a man denies the originality of sin, he is denying what God says about it. He is denying how far from God he actually is and how deep sin is embedded within himself. That is why only God in justifying any can bring any back to Himself and that by the finished work accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is God, on a cross at Calvary.

I think the term you are trying to use is "denies the origin of sin." Denying the originality of sin would be like saying that I am claiming sin copied someone. If you are going to make arrogant proclamations, at the very least try to have SOME grasp of the English language.

Secondly, I am not denying what God says about it, rather your Gnostic concepts of what sin is. Sin affects us all but the guilt lies with those who committed the sin.

Now the Hebrew word, kaphar, is an expression of what must happen within man to reach the point of salvation. We call it repentance but its true meaning is a complete mindset change brought about by God at the drawing of anyone wherein the revealing of Jesus Christ to them opens up how totally unworthy their situation before God is in those moments. This is called conviction.

In those moments when the shame or guilt strikes home and one realises the depth of their sin, the heart breaks asunder as contrition sets in. That is when God is pleased to reveal His saving grace by regeneration. In those moments there is no denial because God has bared all to that broken soul which has no power within itself to resist. It is all of God wherein nothing man can do has any effect. The Spirit enters and faith is given and who would want to resist such a wonderful, marvelous, experience.

The old has now passed away, gone forever, the debt paid in full by that precious blood. A new life begins, one that was bought and paid for by Jesus Christ, and the recipient knows it, feels it, and will never forget it. How can he or she? The Spirit of truth is in them, guiding and teaching them of things appertaining to God. Their fruit is there for all to see and not all apreciate it. To tell of these things is not arrogance, rather the hope that what is to tell will begin the drawing of God to whoever listens.

And what is your point? This doesn't address anything.

[Admiral Piett]

I find myself actually agreeing with CW on this one. Heh.

[sumskilz]

The OP is a joke. Jean de la Valette clearly cherry picked the scholarship in order to find that which supports his preexisting religious views. Actual scholarship recognizes the weakness of both texts and accepts that these texts evolved to some degree over time. Supposedly the Qumran texts correlate with the MT 40% and LXX only 5% according to computer analysis. The weakness of the MT is that the vowel markings at the very least had to come out of an oral tradition. The weakness of LXX is that it is a translation and certain aspects of the Hebrew Bible simply can’t be translated and retain their full meaning like in the case of deliberate double entendres and the implied connection between words which share a common consonantal root.

My favorite obvious mistake in LXX is the choice of the word “breasts” in Song of Songs. The word in the MT is “dodim” which is sometimes translated as “love”, but it means “erotic love” in the sense of passion, affection, and sex. The root word is the verb “to boil”. Consequently, many modern scholars translate it as “lovemaking”. The difference between the two texts is only a difference of vowel markings (dadim or dodim), but I say the LXX version is a mistake because the “your” has gender in Hebrew so we know it is the female character addressing the male character.

So the woman says to the man:

“Your love is better than wine”

or…

“Your breasts are better than wine”

The LXX translation gave medieval Christian scholars all sorts of trouble wondering why a woman would compliment a man on his breasts.

Just an example.

Maybe you didn't read the OP. There are two old testaments. There is the septuagint which is in Greek created during the reign of the Ptolemies. It was translated by 40 some Jewish scribes in 40 different cells and were all identical and this was proof to the Jews that it was "from God." This is the OT Christ and the Apostles would have used. Then you have the Masoretic OT which is a revision of the septuagint created in the medieval era. The protestants used that one.

Actually the story is 72 scholars worked for exactly 72 days each, locked in 72 separate chambers and came up with the exact same translation word for word in the exact same amount of time. Only the story is obviously BS – a creation myth for a text of creation myths.

EDIT: There are also more than two old testaments.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The OP is a joke. Jean de la Valette clearly cherry picked the scholarship in order to find that which supports his preexisting religious views. Actual scholarship recognizes the weakness of both texts and accepts that these texts evolved to some degree over time. Supposedly the Qumran texts correlate with the MT 40% and LXX only 5% according to computer analysis. The weakness of the MT is that the vowel markings at the very least had to come out of an oral tradition. The weakness of LXX is that it is a translation and certain aspects of the Hebrew Bible simply can’t be translated and retain their full meaning like in the case of deliberate double entendres and the implied connection between words which share a common consonantal root.

My favorite obvious mistake in LXX is the choice of the word “breasts” in Song of Songs. The word in the MT is “dodim” which is sometimes translated as “love”, but it means “erotic love” in the sense of passion, affection, and sex. The root word is the verb “to boil”. Consequently, many modern scholars translate it as “lovemaking”. The difference between the two texts is only a difference of vowel markings (dadim or dodim), but I say the LXX version is a mistake because the “your” has gender in Hebrew so we know it is the female character addressing the male character.

So the woman says to the man:

“Your love is better than wine”

or…

“Your breasts are better than wine”

The LXX translation gave medieval Christian scholars all sorts of trouble wondering why a woman would compliment a man on his breasts.

Just an example.

The importance is the meaning of the text, not just the word. So even in your example the sentiment that was meant to come across, came across. The goal of the Septuagint was to create an accurate Greek translation by the Hebrews themselves into the Greek of the time. The Masoretic text was an ideological reaction. So really you have no argument.

Actually the story is 72 scholars worked for exactly 72 days each, locked in 72 separate chambers and came up with the exact same translation word for word in the exact same amount of time. Only the story is obviously BS – a creation myth for a text of creation myths.

Whatever.

[frozenprince]

I gotta side with CW on this one.

Mostly because he is being rational and raising good points, and Basics is mostly just screaming from a pulpit again.

[sumskilz]

The goal of the Septuagint was to create an accurate Greek translation by the Hebrews themselves into the Greek of the time.

That's true, but the translations occasionally appear to show a surprisingly poor understanding of Hebrew casting further doubt on the Septuagint’s already implausible creation myth.

The Masoretic text was an ideological reaction.

Pure speculation, and the remarkable similarities between the Christian Syraic Peshitta translated in the Second Century and the Masoretic text would indicate otherwise.

Evidence from the Aramaic targums indicates that changes would have most likely been to the reading rather than to the text. Though this may be reflected in the vowel markings in that a choice would have to be made between one or more possible words, this is the same as would be the case with a translation to Greek.

Both choosing a word to translate to and adding vowel markings narrows the possible interpretation of the text. On the Septuagint’s side, it’s much older, but translating to an unrelated language does more damage to the text than adding vowel markings because removing the vowel markings still reveals other possible interpretations. The OP offers a one-sided view of scholarly interpretations of Tikkun Soferim. Most assume that if these were actual changes to the text they would be things like replacing YWHW with Adonai or softening anthropomorphic depictions of God.

The assumption here is that one text is a more accurate representation of an original that existed sometime in the distant past, but there is no way to ascertain this based on so little evidence. The Qumran texts differ in some ways from both, which is why modern academic scholarship analyses all available versions. More can be learned from comparing texts than from arguing one is more accurate.

[Carpathian Wolf]

That's true, but the translations occasionally appear to show a surprisingly poor understanding of Hebrew casting further doubt on the Septuagint’s already implausible creation myth.

It really doesn't show that at all. If we want to be quite frank, there is nothing incorrect about it stating that the woman found the man's "breast" appealing. The issue is perhaps an English translation because "breast" refers specifically to the female part. For example in Romanian we would use "piept" for both the chest of a man or a woman. If we are speaking affection here, women to find men's chests appealing just the same as visa versa. So further yet, it looks more like you are trying to find issue where there is none.

Pure speculation, and the remarkable similarities between the Christian Syraic Peshitta translated in the Second Century and the Masoretic text would indicate otherwise.

No it isn't speculation. Why else would they edit it? Have you read the Masoretic along with the Talmud? It's pretty much an anti-Christian commentary. The similarity between Syriac and Hebrew is a no brainer. They're both semetic languages. But again it isn't linguistics we're debating here, but rather the message.

Evidence from the Aramaic targums indicates that changes would have most likely been to the reading rather than to the text. Though this may be reflected in the vowel markings in that a choice would have to be made between one or more possible words, this is the same as would be the case with a translation to Greek.

Both choosing a word to translate to and adding vowel markings narrows the possible interpretation of the text. On the Septuagint’s side, it’s much older, but translating to an unrelated language does more damage to the text than adding vowel markings because removing the vowel markings still reveals other possible interpretations. The OP offers a one-sided view of scholarly interpretations of Tikkun Soferim. Most assume that if these were actual changes to the text they would be things like replacing YWHW with Adonai or softening anthropomorphic depictions of God.

The assumption here is that one text is a more accurate representation of an original that existed sometime in the distant past, but there is no way to ascertain this based on so little evidence. The Qumran texts differ in some ways from both, which is why modern academic scholarship analyses all available versions. More can be learned from comparing texts than from arguing one is more accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Explains it pretty well and he has a nice series on the whole Bible. You can see yourself.

[basics]

" Do you have any idea how delusional this sounds? First off you are not God."

Carpathian Wolf,

Well, since God in regenerating me, has brought me into His family as a son of God through Jesus Christ. So, when I speak, the Holy Ghost being in me, is the One actually putting the words into my head to write. I can understand perfectly why you cannot see this, but if you really read Hebrews you would see it.

" Secondly, any sin that you notice in your brother and judge him by, God will see in you and judge you by. Yet you continuously make arrogant proclamations....."

Go back to your Bible and take note that when Jesus spoke those words He was speaking to the masses, particularly about the hypocracy of the religious leaders, but nonetheless what is said applies to all. Where you are going wrong is in assuming that I am the same as you, not seeing nor understanding what regeneration actually means to God as well as the recipient of it. In other words I wouldn't be able to counter your arguments were I not different. But then I am not denying anything in God's word.

" Yet you continuously make arrogant proclamations of people's afterlives. You always do this basics. This is your logic of argument:........"

The proclamations speak for themselves. If a man is not born again of the Spirit of God he cannot enter heaven and if he cannot enter heaven where else is he to go? The Bible tells you where he is to go and Revelation gives a vivid picture of that. These are not something conjured up but words preached by our God, Jesus Christ.

" I think the term you are trying to use is "denies the origin of sin." Denying the originality of sin would be like saying that I am claiming sin copied someone. If you are going to make arrogant proclamations, at the very least try to have SOME grasp of the English language."

No, I think any reader would grasp what I said especially in light of your denial of its origins and more especially you not knowing the depth of it in you. Your idea of sin is that when men do it that is sin but not anything about the fallen nature being under the curse that makes him do it regardless of what he knows to be right or wrong. As I pounted out Paul makes that quite plain.

Regarding my use of the English language, this is another one of your tactics to avoid the reality of the subject. When a man doesn't know the difference between having idols and not, I don't think he should be casting aspertions about anyone elses use of the written word, even in English.

" Secondly, I am not denying what God says about it, rather your Gnostic concepts of what sin is. Sin affects us all but the guilt lies with those who committed the sin."

That's two secondlies in the same post and you talk about knowing English. No, every man woman and child falls short of the glory of God not by what they do but by what Adam did and therefore need a Saviour, why? Because without Him and His blood, what makes you fall short couldn't be taken away, why? Because the price of being fallen short of the glory of God is sin and death and it must be paid for. But then if one does not understand that, when and how does he ever know that God has changed him?

" And what is your point? This doesn't address anything."

Oh but it does address what you miss completely. It addresses the need for a man to come to the realisation of how deep in sin he really is, something that the religious then didn't know of and the religious today still don't know of or as in your case not want to know of.

[sumskilz]

It really doesn't show that at all. If we want to be quite frank, there is nothing incorrect about it stating that the woman found the man's "breast" appealing. The issue is perhaps an English translation because "breast" refers specifically to the female part. For example in Romanian we would use "piept" for both the chest of a man or a woman. If we are speaking affection here, women to find men's chests appealing just the same as visa versa. So further yet, it looks more like you are trying to find issue where there is none.

The Hebrew word (דדיך) consists of the following consonants: D-D-Kh. It can be read as Dodekha (Lovemaking) as it is in the Masoretic Text, or as Dadekha (Breasts) as it apparently was in the Septuagint translation. It can’t be “breast” as in “chest” because it’s plural and is never used for anything other than a woman’s breasts in any Hebrew text. The Greek is also plural - μαστοί. Origen Adamantius understood it as breasts as well and Greek was his first language, but then again he was a man who, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, castrated himself based on a literal reading of Matthew 19:12 “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

No it isn't speculation. Why else would they edit it?

No one knows if they actually did edit it. Though in adding vowel markings they were making interpretive choices based on their understanding of the tradition. This was the primary activity of Masoretes. The tikkun soferim mentioned in the Midrash Tanhuma refers to alleged emendations to the Bible made during the Babylonian Exile. If true, that would predate any existing texts, but the Midrash Tanhuma was probably written mostly in the early Middle Ages and so its authors wouldn’t have had any particular knowledge regarding that period. The most likely historical reason for this belief is the same that is reflected in the explanatory notes added to the Targums – they were disturbed by anthropomorphic representations of God and so tried to claim that the ancient sages had inserted them.

Have you read the Masoretic along with the Talmud? It's pretty much an anti-Christian commentary.

Yeah, and the Jews drank Christian children's blood. I've read parts of it. I don't think you have. There is some anti-Christian Rabbinic literature for sure, but your claim about the Talmud is a common conspiracy theory.

The similarity between Syriac and Hebrew is a no brainer. They're both semetic languages. But again it isn't linguistics we're debating here, but rather the message.

Regarding the Hebrew and Syraic versions, it’s not that the languages are similar. It’s that the earlier Christian Syriac translations are so similar in meaning that they largely discount the allegation that the Masoretic Text represents a version deliberately altered to be anti-Christian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Explains it pretty well and he has a nice series on the whole Bible. You can see yourself.

The issues presented in the video don’t necessarily mean the Hebrew has changed. Obviously Christians get upset when Jews point out that “almah” doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin” as it is translated in the Septuagint, but that doesn’t mean that Jews changed it. It just means that Christians made a case supporting their theology based on that particular translation and thus became attached to it, but it’s only one of the possible translations.

[frozenprince]

" Do you have any idea how delusional this sounds? First off you are not God."

Carpathian Wolf,

Well, since God in regenerating me, has brought me into His family as a son of God through Jesus Christ. So, when I speak, the Holy Ghost being in me, is the One actually putting the words into my head to write. I can understand perfectly why you cannot see this, but if you really read Hebrews you would see it.

" Secondly, any sin that you notice in your brother and judge him by, God will see in you and judge you by. Yet you continuously make arrogant proclamations....."

Go back to your Bible and take note that when Jesus spoke those words He was speaking to the masses, particularly about the hypocracy of the religious leaders, but nonetheless what is said applies to all. Where you are going wrong is in assuming that I am the same as you, not seeing nor understanding what regeneration actually means to God as well as the recipient of it. In other words I wouldn't be able to counter your arguments were I not different. But then I am not denying anything in God's word.

" Yet you continuously make arrogant proclamations of people's afterlives. You always do this basics. This is your logic of argument:........"

The proclamations speak for themselves. If a man is not born again of the Spirit of God he cannot enter heaven and if he cannot enter heaven where else is he to go? The Bible tells you where he is to go and Revelation gives a vivid picture of that. These are not something conjured up but words preached by our God, Jesus Christ.

" I think the term you are trying to use is "denies the origin of sin." Denying the originality of sin would be like saying that I am claiming sin copied someone. If you are going to make arrogant proclamations, at the very least try to have SOME grasp of the English language."

No, I think any reader would grasp what I said especially in light of your denial of its origins and more especially you not knowing the depth of it in you. Your idea of sin is that when men do it that is sin but not anything about the fallen nature being under the curse that makes him do it regardless of what he knows to be right or wrong. As I pounted out Paul makes that quite plain.

Regarding my use of the English language, this is another one of your tactics to avoid the reality of the subject. When a man doesn't know the difference between having idols and not, I don't think he should be casting aspertions about anyone elses use of the written word, even in English.

" Secondly, I am not denying what God says about it, rather your Gnostic concepts of what sin is. Sin affects us all but the guilt lies with those who committed the sin."

That's two secondlies in the same post and you talk about knowing English. No, every man woman and child falls short of the glory of God not by what they do but by what Adam did and therefore need a Saviour, why? Because without Him and His blood, what makes you fall short couldn't be taken away, why? Because the price of being fallen short of the glory of God is sin and death and it must be paid for. But then if one does not understand that, when and how does he ever know that God has changed him?

" And what is your point? This doesn't address anything."

Oh but it does address what you miss completely. It addresses the need for a man to come to the realisation of how deep in sin he really is, something that the religious then didn't know of and the religious today still don't know of or as in your case not want to know of.

So the basis for your argument is that he has to have at one point not believed in god and then had an experience to re-affirm his faith in god to be a real christian? Instead of the fact that he has believed in god and christ and christianity as long as he has been alive making him a real christian?

Do you have any idea how elitist and assinine that is?

[Carpathian Wolf]

@ basics,

I was going to write a big reply as usual but at this point I just have to shake my head at the delusions presented to me. Anyway I sincerely hope you well but I am too unworthy and unclean to even have a conversation with someone so holy as you yourself proclaim. I will admit I often keep debates up longer than needed to be sure that I had been in the right and had every last word spoken that I needed to so I leave no doubt in anyone's mind about the strength of my point. For the first time I will concede that that is not needed here. You are far too "correct" even for me.

The Hebrew word (דדיך) consists of the following consonants: D-D-Kh. It can be read as Dodekha (Lovemaking) as it is in the Masoretic Text, or as Dadekha (Breasts) as it apparently was in the Septuagint translation. It can’t be “breast” as in “chest” because it’s plural and is never used for anything other than a woman’s breasts in any Hebrew text. The Greek is also plural - μαστοί. Origen Adamantius understood it as breasts as well and Greek was his first language, but then again he was a man who, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, castrated himself based on a literal reading of Matthew 19:12 “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

The point gets across. And I don't care for Origen.

No one knows if they actually did edit it. Though in adding vowel markings they were making interpretive choices based on their understanding of the tradition. This was the primary activity of Masoretes. The tikkun soferim mentioned in the Midrash Tanhuma refers to alleged emendations to the Bible made during the Babylonian Exile. If true, that would predate any existing texts, but the Midrash Tanhuma was probably written mostly in the early Middle Ages and so its authors wouldn’t have had any particular knowledge regarding that period. The most likely historical reason for this belief is the same that is reflected in the explanatory notes added to the Targums – they were disturbed by anthropomorphic representations of God and so tried to claim that the ancient sages had inserted them.

But we do know that the LXX follows much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masoretic so what is the debate here?

Yeah, and the Jews drank Christian children's blood. I've read parts of it. I don't think you have. There is some anti-Christian Rabbinic literature for sure, but your claim about the Talmud is a common conspiracy theory.

Please, don't try to portray me as making a conspiracy claim against the Jews. The text is there for you to read yourself. Take what you want out of it but it seems you are more keen on disagreeing with me rather than addressing the topic.

Regarding the Hebrew and Syraic versions, it’s not that the languages are similar. It’s that the earlier Christian Syriac translations are so similar in meaning that they largely discount the allegation that the Masoretic Text represents a version deliberately altered to be anti-Christian.

No it isn't. Both languages are related and much closer. And if you saw the video it shows clear proof of where the changes where made.

The issues presented in the video don’t necessarily mean the Hebrew has changed. Obviously Christians get upset when Jews point out that “almah” doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin” as it is translated in the Septuagint, but that doesn’t mean that Jews changed it. It just means that Christians made a case supporting their theology based on that particular translation and thus became attached to it, but it’s only one of the possible translations.

It doesn't mean that when the word is changed. Honestly he spells it out quite nicely. I don't see where you are bringing your arguments for when he plainly shows the issue as obvious as day.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

@Sumskilz,

Stop posting ridiculous anecdotes as facts. I have posted an entire work of scholarship, dutifully analyzed and exposed down to the most stringent minutiae. Meanwhile you reply with banalities: "there are more than two versions of the New Testament available". Really? Lol, the earth is round. And "Medieval Christian exegesis"? What are we talking about? Medieval Western Christian exegesis, Vulgate-based / Codex Vaticanus-based? Medieval Greek exegesis, based on Sinaiticus and a couple of other manuscripts? Medieval Jewish Scriptural traditions, post-Jamnia, later Rabbinical Judaism, Leningrad Codex? What some scholar in his cabinet assumes is the Medieval tradition, but can't get the other scholar on the second cabinet to agree with?

I will not even proceed with the details. I can bring several academic professors to prove this is right. IN FACT, I have spoken with several academic professors who have told me with perfect confidence to read the LXX and to trust it over the MT. That post is just a single example of the outcome of a detailed analysis, and conferences with scholars - only for those who actually have the courage to believe, of course, that "Church Tradition" is 'superstition' and 'can't be trusted'. Lol.

Please, when you make an attack, don't assume people will just believe in you out of the blue. The only joke is your post. And your most ridiculous assumption is that my religious view colours it: well, please look at yourself first sir. Atheism is a religion people join to look clever, and when they try to sound clever, it makes their statements sound as stupid as formally possible. Nice job.