ichabod crane

Firstly, it seems to make perfect sense with strength. Secondly, why does the word `oz never mean praise anywhere else (it occurs many times)? Thirdly, if the manuscripts are erroneous, then how did the MT get to read `oz instead of tehillah and why is there no manuscript evidence to support this?

The explanation is obvious. The writer of Matthew used the LXX, not realizing that the Hebrew read differently. That explains all the facts without having to resort to fanciful explanations, such as inventing new word meanings without textual support of postulating manuscript corruptions that don't have any evidence.

doubtingthomas

Im hardly offering a complete explanation for this, only observing that "praise" would be something more likely to come out of the mouths of children than "strength". I agree though that it seems more likely to have been a problem with Matthew using a fault translation.

ichabod crane

The Old Testament not infrequently speaks of the effect of speech as coming out of the mouth, rather than the speech itself. For example, Psalm 59:7 says "swords (charavot) are on their lips". Does this mean that swords are literally on their lips? Obviously not - its talking about the effect or outworking of their speech, not the speech itself. Psalm 73:9 says "their tongues walk (tihalak) across the earth". Is that literally true? So why is "From the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have established strength" any different to these examples? The verse continues that because of this God's enemies have been ceased or silenced. Is this likely to be mere words, or actual warefare in which the weakest of the Israelites (metaphorically, infants) is made to triumph over their enemies?

WILLOWTREE

Irrelevant point.

God uses people all the time for His purposes.

You are saying just because David might not of known, then ......

{irrelevant insult}

This comment proves that when pseudo-scholars band together with "Jesus" name in their group title, the ignorant masses who want a basis to trash the truth of christianity will latch on to old atheist pseudepigrapha myths.

Unbelievable !

Could it be that the inaccessible MT text wasn't even in its inception process for another 300 years ?

{irrelevant insult}

The LXX was produced by Jews hundreds of years prior to the birth of Christ.
Common sense and honesty dictates that a source created 300 to 100 BC had better mss than a source (MT) created 300 to 1100 AD.

The arbitrary dismissal of the LXX IS ONLY DONE BECAUSE OF ITS MIRROR IMAGE OF JESUS CHRIST.

IF bad translations of the LXX has happened THEN this still says nothing about the source itself except fear of truth and accuracy.

Pure biased assertions.

The only thing this comment says is to assert Matthew a liar.

This is a compliment to the OP and its arguments.

At least you admit what you say is a theory.

Your theory completely avoided what I actually said in the OP.

The reason you refer to your own opinions as a "theory" is because you have given up on evidence. To consider evidence is to consider God and the truth.

The KJV translators who dealt with Psalm 8 used the MT.

The KJV translators who dealt with Matthew used the LXX.

Every honest and intelligent person knows that the MT was created to counter the LXX and its inescapable mirror image to Christ the Messiah.

How does the MT rendering of "strength" make any sense for little children to speak ?

It doesn't.

The LXX, created by Jews, interprets that hebrew word "praise".

The only reason the MT changed the meaning was to distance themselves from the obvious fulfillment being declared by christians.

Rabbi Solomon Isaac/"Rashi" (born 1040 AD) deliberately changed many interpretations of words. He admits our "old doctors" interpreted rightly, but the christians must be "met". The MT intentionally changed the text as translated in the Aramaic Targums. I will provide the exact quotes and source from my notes in a few days.

doubtingthomas

Actually, I think they used copies of Matthew, not the LXX, to translate scripture.

The one thing that you're missing is that this is not a prophecy or fulfillment regardless of whether you think MT changed the original passage. Jesus is merely quoting a scripture that is pertinent to his situation.

" Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger."

This passage can't be a prophecy because the author isn't predicting anything. Also, the author of Matthew always recorded a prophecy he thought was fulfilled by Jesus in the text. Yet, we have no mention from Matthew that this was a fulfilled prophecy.

Amaleq13

Please keep the tone civil and address the arguments/claims without resorting to insults.

WILLOWTREE

Are you the Mod responsible for the censorship of my arguments ?

There were no insults, just pointy points which struck a nerve in you.

Please restore my words.

This is the Internet not North Korea.

What pure hypocrisy - you are undoubtedly an open minded person who supports all the rights of porn on the Net but a christian who SAYS nothing out of line is axed.

You could not tolerate my arguments so you invented reason to show me your pseudo authority.

I am leaving your antiseptic forum, now you atheists can orgy among the dumb fundies and make yourselves feel intellgent.

Amaleq13

Yep. That's what the tiny type says at the bottom of the post.

What was removed were insults against an individual rather than an argument against a claim. The former are irrelevant and have no place in reasoned discussion.

No.

Complaints about moderation belong in IIDB Bugs, Problems & Complaints . Feel free to post your complaint for administrators and/or other moderators to address it.

What was removed was not relevant to your argument. Please refer to New Rules/Registration Agreement to refresh your memory on what is and is not allowed here.

ichabod crane

It seems from his comments that WILLOWevcTREE has "left the building", but anyway, for the record, here is my response to his points.

Talking about "honesty", you make a very dishonest comparison. You are comparing the date of translation of the LXX (which was only one or two hundred years before Christ) with the date of the earliest manuscripts of the MT. But that is comparing apples and oranges. The date of writing of something, and the date of the earliest manuscripts of that thing, are two different things. The earliest manuscripts of the LXX date from hundreds of years after Christ. The date of writing of the MT was hundreds of years before the LXX was even translated. We take the MT over the LXX because it is a painstakingly accurate copy of the original Hebrew text (with vowel pointing added), whereas the LXX is a mediocre translation of the Hebrew text.

All the textual evidence from the MT shows that it was written hundreds of years before Christ. Please cite evidence for your claim that it dates from 300 to 1100 AD. That view is not shared by any reputable scholars.

It is also well known that the LXX is a biased translation because of the influence of Platonism on the part of the translators. Alexandria was the seat of Hellenistic Judaism which was heavily influenced by Platonism, and the translation itself shows numerous examples of Platonist influences.

Perhaps you would like to name these "honest and intelligent" people who "know" that the MT was created to counter the LXX? Names of scholars please!

And perhaps you would like to present some evidence to support your claim. You have not shown any at all yet. You have simply asserted the claim.

Now you are completely confused. You are now claiming, not that the Jews changed the text, but that they changed the meaning of the word "`oz". But the MT is just a text; it doesn't specify meaning of words. How can you claim that the MT "changed the meaning of the word". How did it do that, if not by changing the text? Please specify how the MT was changed to alter the meaning of the word. And please decide which of the following quite different claims you are making:

(a) That the MT was changed to read "`oz" instead of something else.

OR

(b) That the meaning of the word "`oz" was changed to mean something else.

Please tell us whether you think (a) or (b). They aren't the same thing.

If they changed the meaning of the word "`oz" (and how does someone just change the meaning of a word?), then why does it never mean praise anywhere else in the Old Testament? Why do the translators of the LXX never translate it as "praise" anywhere else?

I think the truth is pretty evident to everyone on this matter, WILLOWevcTREE. And, for the record, I'm not an atheist. Though it wouldn't matter if I was, provided that I argued accurately according to the text and provided evidence for my assertions.

CX

Just a reminder that grievances with respect to moderation should NOT be aired in this forum. Any complaints should be directed to the Admins with a post in the forum for that purpose.