Sven

I wonder how we are supposed to do this after he left...

funinspace

Sources, I'll give you a couple of probable guesses in case you haven't seen this performance in other threads
Everett Scott
Montgomery Scott
Gene Scott
Willard Scott


[fanatic]Why don't you know he is the most brilliant Biblical Scholar around, and he even has a PHD. He is incredibly plagiarized, but receives no credit. Well, no he isn't published, so I can't provide source material. But he is available on audio/video for you 'all to be amazed and converted.[/fanatic]

WILLOWTREE

I am stating that the LXX was produced at least 400 years prior to the inception of the MT.

I stated a known fact: The LXX was produced PRIOR to the birth of Christ.

This means the LXX has no christian bias in its translation.

300 to 100 BC production range dictates that the LXX MUST of had better mss than a source (MT) which was produced 300 to 1100 AD.

This is a bare assertion/opinion that defies the facts.

Rhetorically speaking, how could the LXX, produced by 70 to 72 Jewish scholars from 300 to 100 BC be post-Christ ?

Answer: Only if you want to ASSERT a general dismissal of the source because of the existence of christianity. This position assumes corruption, a position which is made because of the Messianic claims of christianity. A position of biased opinion containing no evidence.

Absolute reversal of known facts.

Why is this done ?

Because of the pre-christian origin of the LXX and its Jewish scholarship.

Because the LXX, interpreted by Jews, gave mirror image to Jesus Christ hundreds of years later. This is the ONLY reason why the MT was produced - to create a source by which Jews could reclaim as their own because of the perceived christian takeover of the LXX by christiandom.


"painstakingly accurate": This is referring to the accounting of each letter and word by the MT scholars. This well known fact is touted all over the Internet and is passed off TO ALSO MEAN that the MT scholars interpreted each word correctly. The adding of vowel points is ADDING to that which was not there to begin with. Did the MT scholars refrain from any anti-christian bias in their renderings ?

More bare opinions. Fact: the MT was produced 300 to 1100 AD.

How could a source (MT) have better mss than a source (LXX) which was produced and finished 100 years prior to Christ ?

The LXX scholars had mss that were Ezralitish in origin, which implies Moses. [source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University]

It is not a matter of opinion, the MT was produced hundreds of years after the LXX - no one I know has ever disputed that.

MT supporters arbitrarily claim that their mss were older than the LXX sources, but like I said how could this be when AT LEAST 400 years separate the finish product of the LXX from the inception process of the MT.

NOTE:

When a debater invokes that his view is the view of reputable scholars, this is a straw man argument created because of perceived truth in claims contrary to what he has argued.

I have claimed this from the OP. Now I add the actual evidence:

source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University, placard in glass case substantiating the corruption of the LXX by MT scholars, citing "Untitled Manuscript".

Type into Google "Rashi Change Text" and bring your lunch - this guy made a career in changing the "painstakingly accurate" MT.

Also in glass case:

Example of Psalm 21:7:

MT omits "messiach" .

Hebrew translation of Aramaic Targum (edit: pre-MT) contains "messiach"

Latin translation says "Rex Christus"

The MT scholars produced their source with one objective in mind: Erase every substance that can evidence Jesus as Messiah or as fulfilling prophecy.

Other than this, the MT is just great !

Dean Anderson

We have a winner!

ichabod crane

But you're just re-asserting that the Masoretic text dates from after 300 AD. You haven't provided any evidence. Judge has pointed out on another thread that ancient Hebrew texts have been found in desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever, and the Nahal Se'elim which back up the Masoretic Text against the Septuagint, and these date from around 100 AD. But these are just the manuscripts. The texts themselves are much earlier. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Qumran scrolls date from 300 BC and if they read "`oz" (I haven't checked) then your whole thesis is disproved.

No, it's a fact. Name any extant manuscript of the Septuagint that dates from earlier than 400 AD. My statement clearly was about the date of the manuscripts that we have, not the date of writing. I'd made that distinction quite clear.

Absolutely contrary to all credible scholars. Please cite evidence - in all your posts you haven't given a single piece of evidence to back up your conspiracy claims.

The scholars didn't interpret the text, they just copied it. They may have interpreted it for their own purposes, but so what? That doesn't matter unless they changed the text.

I know Hebrew well, WILLOWevcTREE, and this shows your complete ignorance of the language. I challenge you to show how the word "`oz" (strength) can be changed to "praise" (tehillah) just by altering vowel pointing. It can't be done. Everyone is well aware of the addition of vowel pointing, and if you can show that there is an alternate rendering that is possible just by altering vowel pointing, then I will consider your argument. But there is not. I would also be amazed if you can show any such example which illustrates anti-Christian bias.

If you mean the vowel pointing and so forth, than that is true. But if you mean the text itself dates from there, then few if any scholars believe that. That is why you need to provide evidence for your claim.

And when a person puts forward an argument completely contrary to all known facts, and presents no evidence whatsoever to back up his assertions, what does that say? Show us your evidence, please.

OK, good example of taking a phrase out of context. "Our old doctors" almost certainly refers to the translators of the Septuagint. But in any case, I don't base my claim (that everyone who knows Hebrew, which you don't, agrees with), that "`oz" means strength on some claim by some Rabbi. I claim that it means strength because that is the way that it is used everywhere else in the Old Testament, and it is a common word. If you want to claim that it means "praise", then show me an example somewhere else in the OT where it means that.

Furthermore, this disproves your claim that the Masoretic Text was changed to conform to be anti-Christian. It shows that the word was always "`oz", from start to end. So the text itself was always the same. No corruption.

Dean Anderson

I see that you avoid this straw-man agrument by only invoking disreputable scholars like Gene Scott...

In an earlier thread, I have already pointed out that some of Gene Scott's claims (about things you claim him to be the world's leading expert at) that you repeat here are wrong, based on fraud, and easily exposed as such. Since this televangelist and cult leader has been shown to repeat fraudulent claims, and is believed by the IRS to be commiting fraud himself (their investigation of him was stopped, when some of his 'friends' whose causes he donated lots of 'charity' to pulled strings on his behalf), I would be careful of believing what he says if I were you.

I did the Google search exactly as you asked. None of the results support Gene Scott's allegations, and indeed, the first result of that search clarifies as follows...

Also - why do you keep pointing out that Gene Scott has a PhD from Stanford University as if that backs up his claims? His PhD is completely unrelated to theology and is irrelevant.

doubtingthomas

From what I understand Dr. Scott holds a Ph.D. from Stanford in Philosophy, this hardly qualifies him as an expert on biblical studies.

Jack the Bodiless

You seem to have missed the point that this was unnecessary.

Even if every available text said "praise": this wouldn't be an example of a successful prophecy, merely the author of Matthew inventing a claim about Jesus to have him "fulfil a prophecy".

We already know that this author did that: the gospel of Matthew contains mumerous "prophecy fulfilments" that are clearly bogus, referring to OT verses that have plainly been ripped out of context.

Dean Anderson

Actually, it is even weaker than that as an example pf prophecy.

Matthew isn't even claiming that his version of Jesus fulfils a prophecy here. He simply has his Jesus quote scripture at someone to prove a point.

dost

I have a question to ask relating to Matthew's use of the Jewish Bible.

Matthew 2:14-15:

"And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

This is the passage Matthew has in mind:

Hosea 11:1:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

I am quite surprised how Matthew could see a fulfillment in this passage since he quotes it completely out of context.

Indeed, the context of the Hosea passage in either Hebrew or Greek would do nothing to favour an application to Jesus, for the prophet speaks of the chastiment of the child(ren) whom God has called out of Egypt.

[Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 220]

There are of course other passages in his infancy narrative which are equally problematic when compared with the Jewish Bible.

The conservative defences of Matthew's use of this passage is not at all impressive in my opinion, but there is one interesting argument which is used to defend Matthew, namely, that one of Messiah's name is Israel, based upon the following passage:

"Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name. He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver. He said to me, 'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.' But I said, 'I have labored to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing. Yet what is due me is in the LORD's hand, and my reward is with my God.' And now the LORD says - he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength - he says: 'It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.' This is what the LORD says- the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel - to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: 'Kings will see you and rise up, princes willl see and bow down, because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.' This is what the LORD says: 'In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, "Come out," and to those in darkness, "Be free!" They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill.'" Isaiah 49:1-9

It is therefore argued that Matthew was correct when he applied a passage that originally dealt with national Israel to "God's true Israel, Jesus." What do others think of this line of argument?