dthmstr254 said:
The Septaguint is what was used at the time and the Jewish belief that the laws were mistranslated did not surface until Christians started using them to prove CHristianity.
I have already stated this. For your reference, the Septuagint is the Torah only-the Pentateuch-the first 5 books. And consequently were it actually fact that The Bibles of today derive from such a source, it would be five books in total, not 66. If we are to presume that there were indeed 70-72 Hebrew scholars who happened to recount the Pentateuch word for word without addition, subtraction or change from 3,300+ years earlier, then we have to ask not only where the originals of the other 61 books are but even the copies that would have been required for the likes of plebians such as Paul, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignaeteus, and all other preachers of the faith from Jerusalem to Greece to preach that which they did not know.
Since you agree that the Jews finally decided to put their scriptures into the written word because of Christian usage, you also agree that there is no Hebrew text prior to Christian scripture.
If you actually read the Hebrew Bibles, and research them,..
Really? If I read them I will find this disclaimer within the text? Would you mind pointing to where exactly that would be? And how exactly would such an admission prove that the new copy was in fact an exact word for word copy of the original? which mind you, has to begin its dating to around the 17th century BCE, so, which Hebrew bibles are these? There are none to this day which pre-date the Christian Bible, and that is entirely my point, isn’t it?
The fact still remains, the pieces of the Talmud we have dating to prior to the Septaguint were written in Hebrew.
Pieces? What pieces would they be, where can we find these ‘Hebrew’ pieces? What is the extent of those pieces, are you willing to provide proof that these ‘pieces’ written only in ‘Hebrew,’ do in fact mimic word for word the entire account of the Old Testament as attested to in only ‘Hebrew,” and only what is in contained within those Testament? Can you account for Hebrew as the language of the Jews or of the Septuagint’s authors prior to Aramaic, and Greek? Is it not fabled that the Septuagint was created in Greek? How then do you account for this gross misconception on your part? And how old exactly are these supposed Hebrew texts, and where are they to being held?
Actually, that is the accepted opinion of the majority of Jewish scholars and rabbis. They cite that as the reason for the accuracy of the Bible. They cite that from the Talmud and the Torah.
This does not answer my questions, and once more, yours is a statement presented without factual evidence as to any citation. And before you continue on, might I impart some information to you---the Talmud is a concoction that was begun at the earliest in the late 3rd century CE.. and was developed over centuries as the Jews tried to defend against the interpretations of their beliefs. The necessity to explain the idiosyncrasies of two creation theories points to why the Adam and Lillith tale of the Talmud came about.
THe scribes were very proud of their job, and desired to keep it. If they changed it from copy to copy, it would be easy for a rabbi to read and say, that was wrong. The scribe would then be removed of his title and be considered a heretic.
Yet more unsubstantiated claims for if that were so, then you have to ask yourself why it is that the Christian translations, and I stress translations, of the Testament to this day,are not mirror images of each other either as a whole or in wording.
There were no vowels in Hebrew back then. Hebrew with vowels is a more modern version. The vowels are put there by modern day hebrews. As for translation, the words you mentioned are too different from each other in the consonant form to be anything like it. There are standards in languages.
This is an excuse without foundation. Who might these ‘modern Hebrews’ be? And yes, it is true, there were and are no vowels, just as there were no vowels for the ancient Egyptian language, but it hardly explains why to this day scholars will choose which vowels and consonants or meaning to give to a specific word and in what context you are expected to use that meaning. I will use the easier for you to understand:
-Is it then Cain, Cainan or Canaan? Set or Seth? Enoch or Enosh? Mehujael or Mahalalleel? Methusael or Methuselah? Noah or No?
-Amen supposedly means “so be it” in the Biblical sense lest we dare think a prayer is in fact being said to an Egyptian idol. Its transliteration for lack of vowels is also Amun, the latter taken to mean the hidden one. Sound familiar?
-Bethel or if you prefer Beth-el, is taken to mean the name of a place when in fact it means - House of God. in other words a temple.
-El supposedly a Hebrew term for the one and only god when in fact it means many gods in the language the Jews spoke when they were supposedly enslaved by that place called Egypt and finds its place as a prefix in places within Egypt which is also taken to mean---Gods.
-Haran/Harran I suppose in no way shape or form can the first ‘a’ be replaced with a ‘u’ lest we confuse a mountain in Mesopotamia with a site where a shrine near the sphinx was dedicated to Osiris.
-Iscariot can only mean something other than zealot or we might just assign the true meaning of the word (ekariot) in the Hebrew sense which means cutthroat to Judas, and where Judas/Judah and even Jude, all different interpretations of one name are found in books of the NT supposedly written by men who were purported to have either roamed together or grew up in teh same era.
-Marianme can only be Mary in the Roman sense. Or we might just have to associate this woman with one of the Herodian Marianmes. If there was a true representation from the Hebrew language we would not be referring to anyone as Mary, much less Jesus, John, Simon, Thomas, Joseph or worse---Cephas aka Peter.
Those are but a minute few liberties which scribes and scholars both past and present, depending on their particular bent, choose as transliterations or determinations for presenting the old text. Since they all lack uniformity, I can only conclude that they are not meant to confound the masses per se but rather to serve to deceive them and keep them utterly confused.
