/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>543829

false.

>>543829

>he reads a text made by jews to discredit Christians because he hates the pope more than jews XD

>>543837

Pretty sure douay rheims uses it and here's what it says

1 Samuel 13:1

Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

>>543852

It means that one year had passed since Saul became king and second year began of his reign.

>>543858

Hahahaha No

>child of one year when he began to reign,

It says he was one when he began to reign. KJV says what you said

KJV

Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

>>543852

That verse simply does not appear in the Septuagint.

Please research.

>>543869

I've always had catholics say douay rheims is based off the Septuagint but they could be lying like papists usually do.

>>543869

Also the Septuagint doesn't even have a book called 1 Samuel, it gets named to 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings, etc.

>>543870

>douay rheims uses Septuagint

I think it might use it at times , or had a reading similar in some parts but 1 Sam 13:1 is not one of those parts.

>>543863

Ver. 1. Of one year. That is, he was good, and like an innocent child, and for two years continued in that innocency. (Challoner) (St. Gregory) (Worthington) — Israel. This verse is omitted in some copies of the Septuagint. It is extremely difficult to explain. Some translate Hebrew, "Saul was a son of one year old," &c. (Symmachus) Others, "Saul begot a son the first year of his reign, (Raban) Isboseth, who was 40 years old when his father died, after governing all that while. (Serarius) — Syriac and Arabic, "In the first or second year of the reign of Saul….he chose," &c. Hardouin supposes that the people dated their years by his reign only so long. Some think that the Hebrew is imperfect; and an ancient interpreter has, "Saul was 30 years old, when he began," &c. (Calmet) — The Rabbins and many commentators assert, that the reign of Saul lasted only two years. (Tirinus) — But some of them explain this, as if he reigned alone only that term before he was rejected, when he could only be regarded as an usurper. Others, that he obtained the whole power for two years, after the death of Samuel. Usher concludes that, during the incursions of the Philistines, he could hardly be said to reign, and these commenced after he had been king two years. We might also translate, "Saul was the son of the year of his reign, (when he was confirmed at Galgal) and in the second year….he chose," &c. (Calmet) — Perhaps the first translation, though somewhat mystical, may be the most literal, shewing that for one year Saul continued to act with the most engaging affability and moderation. But in the second he threw off the yoke, and was, in his turn, rejected by the Lord, as we shall soon behold. (Haydock) — Scaliger seems to prefer allowing that the numeral letters have been omitted by some transcriber, and that we should read, Saul was 30 years old. This, and similar variations, he attributes to the compendious method of using numeral letters; (Kennicott) an inconvenience very frequently attending all manuscripts, both sacred and profane. (Taylor)

Why read a translation written by a heretic like Origen? I'd rather just read from the originals, because Scripture itself testifies that it will never pass away, that it will be here eternally from generation to generation, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. God has spoken.

>>543908

>LXX was written after Christianity became a thing

If anybody needed proof that (((they))) are trying their best to take down Christianity…

>>543912

Oh, and even more depressing, I heard some claim that the LXX was translated from the Masoretic to accomodate the Bible.

Literally Jewish propaganda right there.

>>543912

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Luke 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Matthew 5:18

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>>543908

"Some persons, thinking it a scandalous thing that these laws [of Moses] should only be known among one half portion of the human race, namely, among the barbarians, and that the Greek nations should be wholly and entirely ignorant of them, turned their attention to their translation.

"And since this undertaking was an important one, tending to the general advantage, not only of private persons, but also of rulers, of whom the number was not great, it was entrusted to kings, and to the most illustrious of all kings. Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, was the third in succession after Alexander, the monarch who subdued Egypt; and he was, in virtues which can be displayed in government, the most excellent sovereign, not only of all those of his time, but of all that ever lived; so that even now, after the lapse of so many generations, his fame is still celebrated . . . .

"He, then, being a sovereign of this character, and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person. And having explained his wishes, and having requested him to pick him out a number of men, of perfect fitness for the task, who should translate the law, the high-priest, as was natural, being greatly pleased, and thinking that the king had only felt the inclination to undertake a work of such character from having been influenced by the providence of God, considered, and with great care selected the most respectable of the Hebrews whom he had about him, who in addition to their knowledge of their national scriptures, had also been well instructed in Grecian literature, and cheerfully sent them.

"And when they arrived at the king's court they were hospitably received by the king; and while they feasted, they in return feasted their entertainer with witty and virtuous conversation; for he made experiment of the wisdom of each individual among them, putting them to a succession of new and extraordinary questions; and they, since the time did not allow of their being prolix in their answers, replied with great propriety and fidelity as if they were delivering apothegms which they had already prepared" (The Works of Philo, p. 494).

>>543920

>Psalm 12:6-7

>Isaiah 40:8

>Luke 16:17

>Matthew 5:18

>1 Peter 1:23-25

And thus MT is wrong since its corrupted against Christ

>>543920

The Masoretic is not the word of God. It is the Jewish scripture, translated from the LXX, itself a translation of the original (?) Hebrew that is now mostly lost. The LXX as we know it is earlier and more in line with the original than the Masoretic. Or rather, both the LXX and Masoretic represent the earlier Hebrew texts, but while the LXX is a straight-up Koine translation of the original although with many differences of theological value due to Messianic expectations and Greek not being so much like Hebrew, the Masoretic is a mix-and-match of the original Hebrew, of the LXX translated from Koine to Hebrew, and of changes of theological value done here and there to counter the Christians.

If you believe the Masoretic is more authoritative than the LXX, congratulations, you're a crypto-Jew and you're using scriptures that were edited specifically to counter the Christians.

My point here being of course not that texts that use the Masoretic to one degree or another are not Scriptures. The Vulgate and the KJV both have the same scriptural authority as the LXX, but that is because of their creation and use by the apostolic churches, not because of the original text. Indeed, St Jerome was mistaken to think the Masoretic was equally as important as the LXX, and the KJV makes the mistake of translating both Hades and Gehenna as Hell.

>>543923

Ok first off, that quote proves nothing. Its veracity cannot be confirmed, since it isn't Scripture.

Secondly, it says "who should translate the law," in other words, the five books of Moses.

>>543924

>translated from the LXX, itself a translation of the original (?) Hebrew that is now mostly lost.

So you're not even sure it was originally Hebrew? Did the prophets living before Alexander prophesy in Greek? Talk about miraculous.

>the Masoretic is a mix-and-match of the original Hebrew, of the LXX translated from Koine to Hebrew, and of changes of theological value done here and there to counter the Christians.

You say this without any basis. Can you point to something in the Old Testament I have in front of me that counters Christians? Can you somehow point to something and tell me the MT copied it from the LXX and not the other way around? What about all the Scripture I just posted, was it not really true? 1 Peter 1:23-25 is talking about the full word of God, right?

>but that is because of their creation and use by the apostolic churches, not because of the original text.

Oh, ok. So why does Peter need a successor again? Something from the New Testament to clarify why Peter himself isn't still serving as an Apostle?

>congratulations, you're a crypto-Jew

Prove how doctrinally.

>>543932

>So you're not even sure it was originally Hebrew? Did the prophets living before Alexander prophesy in Greek? Talk about miraculous.

No, I'm not sure that the Hebrew scriptures prior to them being lost were the "original" original. We can't know that for sure, since they're kind of lost to begin with. All we have are the LXX and the Masoretic, as well as the Dead Sea texts.

>You say this without any basis.

Basic scholarly knowledge, for one…

>Can you point to something in the Old Testament I have in front of me that counters Christians?

There are many, many instances where the LXX reflects the original text better than the Masoretic does, and where the Masoretic seems to have been specifically edited to counter Christian claims.

Scholars generally agree that the datings found in the LXX are more like what's in the original than the Masoretic. In fact, because the datings are a little weird (ie Mathuselah outliving the Flood), it's likely that the Masoretic was specifically edited to "fix" this and other unsettling things.

We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that many of the Messianic prophecies that are in the LXX (used by the apostles and by the early Christian communities) and were in the proto-Masoretic (used by our Lord) were carefully softened or outright edited out in the Masoretic.

A few examples: In the Masoretic: Psalm 22:16 removes the prophecy of the crucifixion. Isaiah 53:11 removes the prophecy that our Lord sees the Light, God Himself, and is the Light. Psalm 151, a prophecy of the ministry of our Lord, was removed. Psalm 40:6 removes the prophecy of the Incarnation. Isaiah 61:1 removes the prophecy of our Lord healing the blind. And so on…

And also, the canon of Scriptures was relatively vague. Besides the standard canon, several books would be added or removed, or re-ordered. For Christians, you know about the deuterocanon (aka "apocrypha"), but for Jews, their canon was slowly standardized over centuries after the advent of our Lord, removing books that Christians used, and in particular, Jews have the fictional Council of Jamnia as a counterpart to the very real Council of Nicaea.

A lot of Jewish development after the fall of the Second Temple was in response to Christianity, and that includes their development of the Masoretic and their definition of the canon.

>What about all the Scripture I just posted, was it not really true? 1 Peter 1:23-25 is talking about the full word of God, right?

We use the word of God that we have received. You use the "word of God" of the Jews, over that of the Christians.

>Oh, ok. So why does Peter need a successor again? Something from the New Testament to clarify why Peter himself isn't still serving as an Apostle?

Since we believe Peter and all the saints are alive, we still call them apostles. It does not mean that these apostles did not appoint people to continue their job, so to speak. The 12 appointed Matthias to continue Judas's job. We know from the Scriptures that Peter and Paul appointed overseers, elders, and ministers to pastor congregations while the apostles were gone. And all the apostles received the keys of heaven, and their successors also received them - because the apostles had the authority to do so.

Read 1 Timothy - Paul, using his authority conferred by his apostolate and the Holy Spirit, conferred to Timothy a particular role within the Church, and one with power and gravity as he warns him not to appoint others to this same mission liberally.

>Prove how doctrinally.

You reject the LXX as corrupted, and prefer the Jewish scriptures.

>>543949

>We can't know that for sure, since they're kind of lost to begin with. All we have are the LXX and the Masoretic, as well as the Dead Sea texts.

Ok wait a second. They're "lost," so how is Isaiah 59:21 true in any sense? See, the main difference here is that I believe the Scriptures on the preservation of the word of God. The scholars don't.

>There are many, many instances where the LXX reflects the original text better than the Masoretic does,

How would you know if you don't have the original?

>and where the Masoretic seems to have been specifically edited to counter Christian claims.

Specifically edited to counter? You mean like to contradict Christian claims such as those found somewhere in the New Testament? Please elaborate if you have anything specific on this, I'd be interested to hear it.

>Scholars generally agree that the datings found in the LXX are more like what's in the original

Do they have the original?

>In fact, because the datings are a little weird (ie Mathuselah outliving the Flood), it's likely that the Masoretic was specifically edited to "fix" this and other unsettling things.

I'm aware of the fact that the LXX date were prolonged irresponsibly to account for Egyptian chronology.

>We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Not that I'm using the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were buried by an extreme Jewish cult, as any kind of authority, but just as a coincident doesn't it contain the MT version of Isaiah somewhere among the fragments?

>A few examples:

These are just later additions most likely by Origen. There was no Psalm 151 for example. The only one worth mentioning among these uniquely is the prophecy of the Incarnation. We already have that in Micah 5:2.

If someone made their own version of the Old Testament that inserted even more factually true but not actual prophecies about Jesus, would that make it even better? No because what was there already is enough. Jesus Christ fulfills so many Old Testament prophecies, that makes these look tame. This isn't a contradiction or a counter of anything either, it's just adding more stuff.

>Besides the standard canon, several books would be added or removed, or re-ordered.

Adding and removing is completely different from mere re-ordering. You should know this.

>but for Jews, their canon was slowly standardized over centuries after the advent of our Lord,

Yet in 2 Timothy 3 it is mentioned as already done.

>A lot of Jewish development after the fall of the Second Temple was in response to Christianity,

True, like the Talmud.

>and that includes their development of the Masoretic

They couldn't destroy the word of God even if they tried. They couldn't alter the least tittle of the law. That's what God has said. Read Jeremiah 36.

>You use the "word of God" of the Jews,

Yes, the original Jews, such as the Bereans, which became Christians. And not the Alexandrian gnostics who disfigured their bodies and faces, and produced heavily altered frauds. Their corrupt works are evidence of this.

Also don't act like you actually reject the truth of the original Old Testament that I have in front of me. You try to accept both, I'm the only person here right now who will take no substitute for the Word of God. If I were like you or the scholars saying we can accept both, and denying the originals still exist you would have no problem. Like you said, you're not saying they're not Scriptures.

>The 12 appointed Matthias to continue Judas's job.

Because Judas Iscariot is not an Apostle. You're not comparing him to the other eleven right now, I hope.

>We know from the Scriptures that Peter and Paul appointed overseers, elders, and ministers to pastor congregations while the apostles were gone.

Yeah, they're not creating new Apostles though.

>And all the apostles received the keys of heaven, and their successors also received them

You still haven't explained why they need successors. Plus there is no mention of any of this happening.

>>543870

they're plain wrong it's from the vulgate.

>>543932

>Ok first off, that quote proves nothing.

It proves that anyone who claim that Origen wrote Septuagint must also claim that he wrote Philo of Alexandria. And all of records of him. They basically must claim that Orgien wrote all of pre-III century history

>Its veracity cannot be confirmed, since it isn't Scripture.

By same principle one cannot prove that you are not demon trying to deceive us for your words are not in Scripture.

>Secondly, it says "who should translate the law," in other words, the five books of Moses.

They alone differ from MT, that's the first thing. Second is that even though Pentateuch was first, rest also was translated before Christ.

As Justin Matryr argued with Jew

"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, `Behold, the virgin shall conceive, 'and say it ought to be read, `Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof."

>>544017

>It proves that anyone who claim that Origen wrote Septuagint must also claim that he wrote Philo of Alexandria.

No, because nobody can prove they're talking about the same thing. All you've done is show a mention of the first five books being translated to Greek by someone, which we already know. There's no reason to think it's even the same translation as the Septuagint. And yet the material in the NT that they always reference to try to validate the Septuagint is from the later books of the OT. This is transparently contrived.

Not to even mention the fact you think the originals were lost, which contradicts Scripture. That is the main reason I know you're misled.

>>543924

why did our lord not see it fit to preserve the original hebrew

>>544073

Test the faith of course.

>>544073

The Jewish scriptures went through a long history of writing and compilation.

The final authoritative version is the one used by the apostles, ie the LXX, plus the NT written by the apostles themselves.

>>544065

>No, because nobody can prove they're talking about the same thing.

But we just did. LXX, translation by the Seventy, Alexandrian in origin, used by Christian and Hellenistic jews.

> All you've done is show a mention of the first five books being translated to Greek by someone, which we already know.

And those books are different from MT. Not to mention that Philo used whole of Septuagint, prophets and psalms and wisdom.

> There's no reason to think it's even the same translation as the Septuagint.

Except that Philo citations from this translation are the same with LXX copies that we have.

>And yet the material in the NT that they always reference to try to validate the Septuagint is from the later books of the OT.

LXX is whole of OT my nigger. But even in books of Moses we find it. Acts 7:14 Acts 7:27-28, 1 Cor. 5:13, 1 Pet. 2:9 et cetera et cetera

>This is transparently contrived

What is transparently contrived is your assumptions that Origen wrote Septuagint even though every possible evidence proves you otherwise.

>Not to even mention the fact you think the originals were lost, which contradicts Scripture. That is the main reason I know you're misled.

You are confusing preservation of Scripture with preservation of letters. Not to mention that as seen above, every Christian knew that Jews changed Scripture o deny Christ, and this corruption you try to defend.

>>544274

>And those books are different from MT.

And you literally have them?

>LXX is whole of OT my nigger.

You have yet to prove that full OT existed before the Hexapla. But even if you did, you would then have to explain why it was lost if it is God's Word, see 1 Peter 1:23-25.

>every possible evidence proves you otherwise.

Every possible evidence, so do you have a full OT matching what we now call the Septuagint that predates the Hexapla? And if you have this, can you explain why the source for this Greek translation was also lost? As I see it, the LXX we have today was constructed to appear like it was quoted by NT authors. Whether this was intentional deception or not, I don't know.

>Not to mention that as seen above, every Christian knew that Jews changed Scripture o deny Christ,

You mean like how it was changed by Jews in Egypt and in Qumran? Good thing their efforts failed since all their heavily edited versions were lost for a very long time until recently. Only the true version has always been known, as God promised way back in the Old Testament.

>>544449

>And you literally have them?

Yes, we have, be it in copies of them or preserved in writings of Hellenistics and Christians

>You have yet to prove that full OT existed before the Hexapla.

Wttings of Philo, when he quotes LXX

>But even if you did, you would then have to explain why it was lost if it is God's Word, see 1 Peter 1:23-25.

<LXX

<Lost

<Ever

Really nigger?

>Every possible evidence, so do you have a full OT matching what we now call the Septuagint that predates the Hexapla?

Yes, every evidence.

> And if you have this, can you explain why the source for this Greek translation was also lost?

They were not. I presented two alredy. I can also quote Josephus or better yet, Clement of Alexandria.

>As I see it, the LXX we have today was constructed to appear like it was quoted by NT authors.

But we have commentaries of Philo who died before Matthew ever touched pen to write Gospel and those quotations are the same.

>You mean like how it was changed by Jews in Egypt and in Qumran?

Justin Martyr was born in Samaria, where he lived, and then moved to Rome to start Christian school and present his "Apologies" to Emperor. And he still claim that Jews from Israel proper changed Scripture.

>Good thing their efforts failed since all their heavily edited versions were lost for a very long time until recently.

We had MT though in Hexapla to not looikng far.

>Only the true version has always been known, as God promised way back in the Old Testament.

And thus we conclude, MT was not one, for it was not used by Church. LXX is is and Vulgate.

she REALLY should be wearing something under that cardigan

>>543813

the girl on the left has too revealing clothes anon. Are you trying to bring us to temptation?

>>543813

This. Her nipples are starring right at me.

>>544497

>>544506

>>544513

We /islam/ now!

>>544515

nah just the andersonites

>>544515

>>544524

if you two stop masturbating everyday you'll become particularly sensible to big nipples thrown at your face too

>>543829

>he doesn't know babies CAN be kings but they just have to wait to rule

>>544538

no, nofap makes you realize chunks of body fat with a rancid milk dispenser are actually pretty gross

>>544542

No.

>>544542

t.never did nofap in his life

stop masturbating anon

>>544478

>But we have commentaries of Philo

Presumably so did Origen.

>And he still claim that Jews from Israel proper changed Scripture.

Because they did. And yet none of their versions survived. We might have recently rediscovered some, but that doesn't count as preserved for every generation. Only one remains: the one in front of me.

>LXX is is and Vulgate.

So you finally face the facts about the Vulgate. The LXX is a translation into Greek which was produced after the NT and was subsequently lost for many centuries, as well as the supposed Hebrew source they used being lost, assuming it wasn't just the translator's personal changes. The Vulgate was a translation of many of these into Latin, whose sources were also lost.

So you say that the original OT is lost even today, but that a translation into Greek was made by the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was used to make a translation into Latin before it was also lost for centuries before being rediscovered. Yet the text they supposedly used to make the LXX itself is still missing even today. So according to you all we had was a Latin translation of a Greek translation (made by Jews) of the real OT. Yet Jesus himself said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away.

>>544542

hnng

>>544506

>>544513

This pic is from a porn video. I'm ashamed I know because I've seen it.

>>544612

>Yet Jesus himself said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away.

exactly.

and the apocrypha survives in-tact and prophesied Christ, but we have to throw it away because Baptists don't like to be wrong and non-Lutherans obey Luther for 0 coherent reasons

>>544542

>rancid milk

Anon, what?? Sounds like something a vegan would say

>>544513

>looking at the mammary region

Get your head out of the gutter!!!111!

Didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. lel

>>546177

actually that's how buddhist monks do no-fap, they think about the 'ugly' parts of the body, they think about the blood and excrement and piss, and what it would look like without skin… if they see a young girl they think what she would like old, wrinkled, crippled or diseased and so forth. Apparently it works for them…maybe