/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>560084

>implying there's a wrong way to read the Bible.

>>560084

Take your time. Read in a spirit of prayer - it's not a documentary or a history book, it's divine scripture, for the glory of God. Remember that each single text, even each chapter, is about Jesus first and foremost. If you have a hard time with that, you might want to read first the 4 accounts of the gospel before reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

KJV only bible study group with a scholar that studied the original greek

>>560126

>KJV

>original Greek

Wut

You realise KJV ot is translated from the (((masoretic text))) not the Septuagint?

KJV only. Start with John.

>>560133

>unironically trusting the (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Septuagint))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>560143

YES. YES. YES.

>>560143

>implying that's the Bible

>>560135

If it was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for me.

>>560188

How could the apostles have used it when it was double secret written by Jerome centuries later?

>>560188

Can you show me a berse on that?

>>560135

Adding more parenthesis doesn't make you more (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((right))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>560199

Sure it ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((doesn't))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>560200

You ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((wish)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) it would

>>560203

Seconding the Protodox Meme Bible

>>560201

>scripturecatholic.com

been a while since i've seen that one

>>560208

Inb4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>>560206

Something something Darby, something something Holy Spirit commentary

>>560194

Jerome wrote the Vulgata Latina, not the Septuagint.

>>560201

>Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew – behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

So are you saying the (((Septuagint)) says that Isaiah says "young woman"? And I said post a verse of the apostles saying they use the (((((Septuagint)))))

It takes an extraordinary intelligence to read the bible correctly. Don't rely solely on yourself.

>>560220

1. The original OT was written in hebrew so why do i care what the (((Septuagint))) says if it's in greek?

2. So they didn't translate it from the hebrew then?

>>560188

That translation of the full Old Testament was written by Origen or shortly before.

I could write a book that lifts sentences straight from the New Testament. It doesn't mean the apostles were quoting me.

>>560230

>Hebrew – behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

That's incorrect though. The original Hebrew OT says "virgin" there. You are getting this from a modern incorrect translation that wasn't even produced by Christians. How crass that you would back-translate their work.

>The problem is just that the Masoretic Text was written around the 7th and 10th century after Christ.

So you're what you're saying there is no original Old Testament then? So now you need to explain why would God lie in Isaiah 59:21?

>>560230

>Wikipedia

Really nigguh? They even use BCE and CE. And KJV has all the Christ prophecies correct.

Also doesn't the (((Septuagint))) say Sual was ine when he became king? Might be wring anout that being the (((Septuagint))) though

>>560235

Also even if the (((Septuagint))) was 300 years BC that dossn't mean that the apostles used it

>>560237

There was a Greek translation of the first five books of Moses at the time of Christ. They always want to act like it was the full OT, but that came from Origen. Just because you find some Deuteronomy fragments in Greek doesn't prove that someone else's Greek translation of Isaiah existed then.

>>560234

>The original Hebrew OT says "virgin" there.

Yes. We agree on that. The Orignal says virgin and we know that because it's written in the originals. But the Masoretic Text says "young woman" and the older (((jewish))) translations after Christ says young woman too. The Masoretic Text isn't the original. In case you don't know, we don't have the originals. Noone has, it was lost along time ago, not even Christ had the originals because paper deteriorates after some time.

>Wikipedia

Well well, it doesn't matter wich source I use here, right? Do you really think that the Masoretic Text was made before Christ in order to justify it's use in a Christian Bible? It's clearly Jewish fabrication to make Jesus don't look like the Messiah. Why (((they))) would translate that verse on Isiah as "young woman"?

>>560237

They certainly didn't use the Masoretic Text. Although we have some indications that the Apostles used the Septuagint because we see the discrepancies in the quotes the apostles wrote in the New Testament with what the (((jewish))) sources uses.

>>560242

>and we know that because it's written in the Septuagint

Fix'd. Sorry.

>>560242

>But the Masoretic Text says "young woman"

No it doesn't actually. Just because someone fails at translating it correctly doesn't invalidate the original.

>In case you don't know, we don't have the originals.

Matthew 5:18.

>it was lost along time ago, not even Christ had the originals because paper deteriorates after some time.

The paper was lost, the words were not. This isn't hard unless you make it. The original words were never lost.

>Why (((they))) would translate that verse on Isiah as "young woman"?

Because God forced them to preserve the originals unaltered, but they were always free to make up the "oral law," the Talmud and any number of false translations they wanted. But the originals were unchangable by anyone at any time due to God's will. See Jeremiah 36.

>They certainly didn't use the Masoretic Text.

They did and so did Jesus. Sometimes they made a direct quote, and sometimes it was more a paraphrase. This fact is beyond dispute. There was no rule that they had to quote directly word for word, but sometimes they did. Origen could lift the Apostles' paraphrases and place it in his Greek Old Testament, but that doesn't make it the source.

>>560235

I know you protestant fellas like this GotQuestion site because it defends your doctrines of faith just look and example here (https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-lose-salvation.html). So here I go:

>Masoretic Text

https://www.gotquestions.org/Masoretic-Text.html

"There is a great difference of opinion as to when the Masoretic Text was written, but it was probably accomplished in the 10th -11th century. Several editions existed, varying considerably, but the received and authoritative text is that of Jacob ben-chayim ibn Adonijah, who carefully sifted and arranged the previous works on the subject. It was published in 1524."

>Septuagint

https://www.gotquestions.org/septuagint.html

"The Septuagint was translated in the third and second centuries B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt. As Israel was under the authority of Greece for several centuries, the Greek language became more and more common. By the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., most people in Israel spoke Greek as their primary language."

>>560087

recent convert perhaps?

>>560250

>Yes it does

Then you trust the Jews in their translation work. I don't trust their ability to translate the Hebrew faithfully.

>The Masoretic Text is not the original.

It's the only original. Every other false version has been lost, including whatever they supposedly used to make the Septuagint translation. It could have just been their innovation, such as altering Genesis chronology to fit with Egyptian chronology of the time.

>Do you deny that the Jews after Christ hate Christ and us Christians?

Good thing we don't get it from Jews then.

>But we don't have the original written paper

Stupid argument. We have the original words. 1 Peter 1:23-25 states that the word of God is incorruptible and that it never changes.

>That's why they preserved it on the greek language in a version called the Septuagint. Since it's the unaltered word

That's a translation by Origen. And the supposed 72 wizards who translated the first five books in BC era were Jews whose work can't be trusted either.

>Dude, the Masoretic Text was made seven to ten centuries after Christ and the Apostles

It's a preserved copy, and not the only one. Christians have always had the same unchanged Old and New Testament. It's always accessible. And like I said Jesus himself quoted directly from it word for word, so there's your own argument right there.

>>560242

>Why (((they))) would translate that verse on Isiah as "young woman"?

Or they didn't

>Although we have some indications that the Apostles used the (((Septuagint)))

But we don't

>>560247

I don't really use it and I think they use ESV

>in Alexandria, Egypt.

Really nigguh? You're getting it frin fucking egypt. Have you ever even read the Bible before

>>560259

Almah means virgin, read the pdf.

>>560257

>>560266

>You critic a translation we made

You critic a translation we use because it's from Egypt but embrace a version from the 10th Century made by Talmudist (((jews))).

Fix'd.

>>560248

Why do you have to keep posting this?

>>560266

>So I think your KJV mistranslated Exodus 2:8. Because it says maid as translation of Almah. Go to

Go to 1:39

>>560267

It's not a translation though, so how could they have altered it? How could someone successfully corrupt the original word of God and cause it to be lost. Do you even believe Scripture?

>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.

Also I think you know you don't have any valid response to my previous post which is why you left it alone.

>>560270

You know you could be more dismissive and rude if you didn't give the time. You're not helping to uphold the stereotype that you guys are entirely unhelpful, only uncharitable

>>560279

>(((((D))))-((((((((R)))))))

The Derail Rhymes?

>>560276

How am I being uncharitable? How? I gave him a paper showing that his claim that Almah was a satanic perversion of the true word was false. He's saying my Bible is satanic, I'm proving it's not by sending him to the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah and giving examples of translations of the Hebrew that preserve the true meaning of it. You people always do this where you start insulting Baptists, and when Baptists prove you wrong you go "WAAAH! WAAAH! UNCHAWITABLE!" just don't debate if you're gonna start crying.

>>560276

I'd be pretty flustered if I had to defend 72 virgins who translated the law of Moses into Greek as infallible ubermenschen and admit that the original Hebrew was lost, while pretending to myself it was "just the paper."

>>560283

cry more

>>560285

what the hell are you on about

>>560288

>cries because someone your side called Satanic posted Stairway To Heaven

<"n-n- no, you're crying!"

>It's not a translation though

It's a copy.

>so how could they have altered it?

Changing the words while writing it.

>How could someone successfully corrupt the original word of God

>doubting that the Synagogue of Santan can change words from it's version of the Old Testament

>and cause it to be lost

It's not lost. We have many earlier manuscripts (still copies) today:

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/

Also, we have the Greek Version of the Old Testament. It's more than sufficient to preserve the word of God. Is it only preserved if written in the original language? Don't you think you KJV preserves the word of God?

>Do you even believe Scripture?

Yes. That's why I use a version of the Bible translated from the Septuagint.

>>560279

>Egypt was a godly righteous nation in 200 BC

>any nation was godly righteous in any time a part from Israel established by God (not modern Israel).

>The Douay-Rheims says the same thing

Yes. Because the Douay-Rheims is based on the Septuagint. And the greek word used in Exodus 2:8 isn't the pathernos (virgin in greek) the Septuagint uses νεᾶνις the greek word for maid. Wich is correct. You can look it here on the Septuagint:

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/2/20008//ch/20f9db8ef07869b4f2f157073739f568/

I never claimed that Almah means virgin. You baptists claimed that, but instead the KJV translates Almah (from the Masoretic Text) to maid in Exodus 2:8.

>>560297

>>560271

>>560288

Saying "cry more" is a very uncharitable act. You aren't trying to help the anon, you're only trying to provoke him into action. It's very spiteful.

>62 posts in

>OPs had one response from >>560093

HEY OP

sorry had to shout over all these posts not sure what postion you're coming from, but if you're a protty have some of the following sources to delve into amongst all this diverted discussion

Learn the bible in 24hrs (I've only watched the first 12 hours covering the OT and gives a good overview of the important stuff that goes on that may otherwise go over one's head on the first or even after many readthroughs: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRj8AJuzeJRwHdeFua3pzmwPB_JCS0mIq

Reformed Biblical Hermeneutics & Exegesis with Jeff Weima (on my to watch list)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SBy2BvO8zc&list=PLJQQUhEPs1PXPLl6BWqrg9WWA5ah5ak49

(for info https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-exegesis-and-hermeneutics)

Vid related runs through 10 simple largely common sense principles that applies to all Christians as far as I can remember

PDF related covers reading the bible alongside other introductory things not that I've read it but intend to (see page 67-80 for the section on the bible)

But as, >>560093 anon said to you, before you read it get in a calm head space in a quiet place and pray to God, and petition him for, amongst other things, him to speak to you through his Word.

>>560297

>You baptists claimed that, but instead the KJV translates Almah (from the Masoretic Text) to maid in Exodus 2:8.

Go to 1:09

>>560297

byw do you speak greek or hebrew? Also why would you want your english one to be based off a translation? Not saying it can't be but the est would be to get it from hebrew.

Also if (((D)))-(((R))) translates fron the (((septuigent))) then the (((septuigent))) is shit because it then says Saul was one year old when he became king

>>560288

The story of the Septuagint is that 70 gods descended down to egypt in human form to translate the scriptures which were in Hebrew into Greek. That's what the term "seventy" comes from in the name Septuagint.

>>560297

>doubting that the Synagogue of Santan can change words from it's version of the Old Testament

Read Jeremiah 36. It's impossible for them to destroy or to change the word of God. Impossible for anyone.

>Is it only preserved if written in the original language?

Luke 16:17.

>Don't you think you KJV preserves the word of God?

Yeah, it's a translation though. It represents the sources used to make it, the received text, are incorruptible and unchanging. That's God's promise.

>>560304

>Also if (((D)))-(((R))) translates fron the (((septuigent))) then the (((septuigent))) is shit because it then says Saul was one year old when he became king

Haven't we been over this Verity?

>>560305

>The story of the Septuagint is that 70 gods descended down to egypt in human form to translate the scriptures which were in Hebrew into Greek. That's what the term "seventy" comes from in the name Septuagint.

okieday

>>560306

Don't think so

>>560297

>Yes. Because the Douay-Rheims is based on the Septuagint. And the greek word used in Exodus 2:8 isn't the pathernos (virgin in greek) the Septuagint uses νεᾶνις the greek word for maid. Wich (sic) is correct.

My dude, when you translate something you check both all possible meanings of the word and the context it's used in. The idea that the Hebrew form of Isaiah has changed can be falsified by the Dead Sea Scroll's Isaiah Scroll, which predates Christ, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew, and the Septuagint translates Almah in Exodus as "maid," based on the context that makes sense, as this Almah is a servant," and in Isaiah the Septuagint translates Almah as "virgin," which makes sense cause this Almah is the subject of a miraculous birth. The KJV translates from the Hebrew and does the same thing. The Vulgate as well. Nobody had a problem with it except you, who claimed that Hebrew scrolls written centuries before Christ were altered in order to remove prophecies of Christ, and that we now have no scroll that represents the underlying Hebrew text of Isaiah, which is a nonsensical position with no historical or archaeological basis.

>>560304

>byw do you speak greek or hebrew?

No. But all the information I posted here can be found on internet. That's what I'm doing. Just looking up to the texts, comparing them, gathering proof and posting here. Unless my sources are lying to me, I'm 100% sure that I'm right on this matter.

>Also if (((D)))-(((R))) translates fron the (((septuigent))) then the (((septuigent))) is shit because it then says Saul was one year old when he became king

"The expression “son of …” is a common idiomatic expression in Hebrew. Examples: son of death, a dead body; son of perdition, one who is lost (usually spiritually, as in Jn 17:12) . Another example is “sons of adulterers”, these ‘sons’ are not the children of persons who have committed adultery, but rather it is the sons themselves who have committed adultery, behaving as if they are sons of adultery personified.

Saul was appointed king by the people one year after he was anointed king by Samuel, that is, one year after the Spirit of the Lord came to him, so that he became a new man with a new heart, as explained in chapter 10.

[1 Samuel]

{10:6} And the Spirit of the Lord will spring up within you. And you shall prophesy with them, and you shall be changed into another man.

That is why Sacred Scripture says figuratively that Saul was the son of one year when his reign began. He became a new man when the Spirit entered him and transformed him. So the devout authors of this book of the Bible refer to him as a “son of one year”, meaning that he was born again in the Spirit one year earlier."

>>560305

>The story of the Septuagint is that 70 gods descended down to egypt in human form to translate the scriptures which were in Hebrew into Greek. That's what the term "seventy" comes from in the name Septuagint.

I laughed. Where did you hear this story? I want to read more, it's funny.

>Read Jeremiah 36. It's impossible for them to destroy or to change the word of God. Impossible for anyone.

Do you care to specify the verses?

And how did the Queen James Bible (the Gay Bible) was made? Don't tell me that you think it's the preserved word of God!

>Luke 16:17

"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

I agree. That's why we have the Septuagint. The version the Apostles used.

>the received text, are incorruptible and unchanging.

>The Masoretic Text from the 10th Century written by Talmudist (((jews))) is incorruptible and unchanging

Dude… At this point I just think you are deluded. The incorruptibe and unchanging word is with us Catholics.

>>560314

>the Dead Sea Scroll's Isaiah Scroll, which predates Christ, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text.

But aren't they fake and not preserved and of the Devil?

>>560316

Weren't you the guy saying we were being uncharitable? Now you're saying that all copies of the Hebrew Bible are of the devil and we're Satanic for reading them? Get fucked

>>560314

>My dude, when you translate something you check both all possible meanings of the word and the context it's used in. The idea that the Hebrew form of Isaiah has changed can be falsified by the Dead Sea Scroll's Isaiah Scroll, which predates Christ, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew, and the Septuagint translates Almah in Exodus as "maid," based on the context that makes sense, as this Almah is a servant," and in Isaiah the Septuagint translates Almah as "virgin," which makes sense cause this Almah is the subject of a miraculous birth. The KJV translates from the Hebrew and does the same thing. The Vulgate as well.

Well, we agree on that. That's exactly my point. You claimed that Almah means virgin. I claimed that it depends of the context.

>Nobody had a problem with it except you, who claimed that Hebrew scrolls written centuries before Christ were altered in order to remove prophecies of Christ

Lie. I never claimed that. I claimed that the Masoretic Text, centuries after Christ, altered some passages in order to remove prophecies of Christ.

>and that we now have no scroll that represents the underlying Hebrew text of Isaiah

Yes, we have. I adressed this here: >>560297 and even posted a link with digitalization of many hebrew manuscripts we have. This was the link: http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/

>>560320

I've been assured in so many other threads by 🅱️aptists that the Dead Sea Scrolls are demonic and fake along with anything not TR. I don't get it, am I missing something or are there more newfriends around?

>>560315

>Saul was appointed king by the people one year after he was anointed king by Samuel, that is, one year after the Spirit of the Lord came to him, so that he became a new man with a new heart, as explained in chapter 10.

But that's not what it says

>>560320

I wouldn't trust the dead sea scrolls because that would then mean Gid's word was lost for 2000 years

>>560330

>>560329

>The expression “son of …” is a common idiomatic expression in Hebrew. Examples: son of death, a dead body; son of perdition, one who is lost

On chapter 10 Saul receives the Holy Spirit and (one year later) the new man Saul, who has reborn in the Spirit as said on 1 Samuel 10:6, has one year.

>>560335

Nigguh it literally says he was a child if ine year when he became king. Your argument is "he meant the opposite of what he said".

Pretty sure ESV says the same thing

>>560337

>Pretty sure ESV says the same thing

It doesn't.

>Nigguh it literally says he was a child if ine year when he became king.

Jesus literally said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. Do you believe that?

what's goin on in this thread?

>>560340

A battle of wits.

>>560304

You do know the Septuagint is more often quoted in the NT than the Hebrew text?

>>560348

>the translation is more often qouted than the language it was originally written in

>>560349

This but unironically

>>560349

Yes it is. Deal with it.

>>560353

What ever you bud.

btw King Sual wasn't one when he became king

>>560357

After he was born again in the Spirit of God (chapter 10) he became king with one year (chapter 13).

Read the whole book. Not only a verse.

>>560357

Do you have a Church you go to yet?

>>560359

I got saved 6 months go. Saying I'm a child of 6 months is fucking autistic

:^)

>>560315

>I laughed.

You're laughing at the seventy.

>The incorruptibe and unchanging word is with us Catholics.

Only if you have the received text. Which is not the septuagint. But yeah I'm sure somewhere you have versions based on the real original, just like everyone does. So you have no real excuse not to be using it.

>I claimed that the Masoretic Text, centuries after Christ, altered some passages in order to remove prophecies of Christ.

Like what? And if so where is the original Hebrew text that we all used.

>This was the link:

Those are new discoveries. We need something that has always been had.

>>560323

>the Dead Sea Scrolls are demonic and fake along with anything not TR.

They are not valid candidates to make a Bible translation because they aren't preserved. I still know they exist, they just might be altered copies which is why God didn't preserve them and we didn't know about them until we found them in the cave. Same with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, they are not valid candidates because this version was lost until the 1870s. And same with the Septuagint as well, it's a translation. And it was only known through a Latin translation (of a Greek translation) for a long time.

>>560370

>they aren't preserved. I still know they exist

*thinking face emoji*

>>560374

The gnostic gospels exist, that doesn't make them inspired.

>>560376

But is does mean they're preserved, that is, they exist

>>560377

Isaiah 59:21

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

>>560370

>You're laughing at the seventy.

The seventy gods? Yes, I laughed. There's only one God.

>Like what? And if so where is the original Hebrew text that we all used.

I have some bad news. No one has the original Hebrew, not even Jesus had. Only copies. The Masoretic text is a copy from the 10th century made by talmudist (((jews))).

>Those are new discoveries. We need something that has always been had.

There's no such a thing of "something that has always been had". We only have copies of copies of copies and so on. Even the oldest copies are really damaged so the modern scholars rely on textual criticism between many copies and try to solve an actual puzzle by gluing those parts together and seeing what the original text said.

See the video I embeded. It explains really well.

>>560380

Sorry wrong video (kinda).

Watch this one first and then the one I linked.

>>560378

okieday

>>560380

>No one has the original Hebrew, not even Jesus had. Only copies.

This is dissimulation. We have the original words which God put into Isaiah's mouth.

Not a Greek translation. Isaiah didn't speak Greek.

>We only have copies of copies of copies and so on

We have the words.

>by gluing those parts together

A lot of those parts are not received. So then you get the words of man that were recently discovered mixed in, instead of the original words of God that we have always had. That's why textual criticism is a failure ever since Westcott and Hort started this in 1881.

>>560387

>This is dissimulation. We have the original words which God put into Isaiah's mouth.

I agree on this. We just disagree where those words are. I'm certain that it's not on the Masoretic Text.

>Not a Greek translation. Isaiah didn't speak Greek.

Jesus and the apostles did spoke Greek and had a Greek translation. That's why the apostles and the authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint.

>We have the words.

Those are written in some copy, right?

>A lot of those parts are not received. So then you get the words of man that were recently discovered mixed in, instead of the original words of God that we have always had. That's why textual criticism is a failure ever since Westcott and Hort started this in 1881.

I agree on you on that. I really prefer a more traditonal version of the Bible than a modern one made by textual criticism. I was only saying that we have only fragments of copies of the original, not the original itself.

>>560084

You study it. You don't flip through it like a novel.

>>560392

>That's why the apostles and the authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint.

I already said the Greek translation of the complete Old Testament is from Origen.

>I was only saying that we have only fragments of copies of the original, not the original itself.

If so, then Isaiah 59:21 is false. It says the words that were in Isaiah's mouth will never depart. The very words. Also Psalm 12:6-7 says this, Psalm 100:5 says this, Deuteronomy 29:29 says this, 1 Peter 1:23-25 says this, Matthew 24:35 says this, and Matthew 5:18 says this.

>>560399

>I already said the Greek translation of the complete Old Testament is from Origen.

[citation needed]

>If so, then Isaiah 59:21 is false. It says the words that were in Isaiah's mouth will never depart.

It didn't depart. It's just NOT in the Masoretic Text.

>>560405

>[citation needed]

You want a citation, just so you can derail the conversation to make it all about what the ((scholars)) think. Well, here is their own admission for you:

>Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

>the Hexaplar rescension

See? That's Origen.

>It didn't depart. It's just NOT in the Masoretic Text.

It's not in the Greek Septuagint. That's a Greek translation. So you have to believe it's somewhere or just be ignorant of the truths of the Bible. That's why we use the original Hebrew text and not a Greek translation made by a mystical bunch of immortal infallible Jews or by Origen. Either way.

>>560414

>Relatively complete

Of course the Apostles didn't have the full LXX. The original Septuagint made by the mythical 70 jewish elders were only the Pentateuch. Then the rest of the Old Testament was made by time and the Aposltes used a incomplete version to quote in Greek. Then it was finished by Christians too.

That's really different from the Masoretic Text that the KJV uses as basis of its translation. The Masoretic Text was published on the 10th century by Talmudist Jews aka the Synagogue of Satan.

>>560421

>Then the rest of the Old Testament was made by time and the Aposltes used a incomplete version to quote in Greek.

Or someone use the Apostles' paraphrases directly in their Greek Old Testament translations.

>The Masoretic Text was published on the 10th century by Talmudist Jews aka the Synagogue of Satan.

We Christians have always had the original Old Testament. It even says so in 2 Timothy. It's incapable of being lost, and all that is left to do once you find it is to have it be communicated. Either by tongues like what happened on the day of Pentecost or just by one man to another through preaching if they can't read, or just by regular translators with no agenda looking at the real manuscripts if you have a printing press ready. The problem today is that translators have an agenda and they are looking at manmade edited manuscripts that they found in 1870. The NIV and other versions are based on basically the Jefferson Bible of Alexandria, so it doesn't matter what their translation technique is, the result will be wrong.

So in closing, the Masoretes did NOT have the only copy of the Old Testament. It has always been in our possession, it's only known as the MT to scholars today because of the fact that's the oldest source they could find. This could easily change with new findings, such as the Isaiah found in Qumran, but we were never relying on the oldest copy we could find anyway but rather on the fact that there has only ever been one unchanging word of God that will last to all generations. So just because it's called the MT by scholars doesn't mean they were the ones who wrote it. Because then you'd have to say there was no surviving Hebrew Old Testament. It actually has a common source with the Scriptures as mentioned in 2 Timothy, and at the time the Masoretic text was released there were many other identical copies around already. And also I'm pretty sure the Masoretes were Karaites, not that this matters.

>>560429

>the Masoretes did NOT have the only copy of the Old Testament. It has always been in our possession

The only copy of the OT that has been preserved by any Apostolic Church is the LXX. You speak of scholars "not being able to find" the Hebrew OT texts preserved by the Church, like their collective efforts were looking through a library for 15 minutes, like there are dozens Hebrew OT manuscripts languishing around unseen in the possession of churches. You cannot find that which does not exist, and we have uncovered literally thousands of biblical manuscripts with no whiff of Hebrew copies in there. There is furthermore no mention of this supposed continued usage of the Hebrew in any document otherwise. Your assertion beggars belief.

>>560268

t. recent convert

>>560554

>we have uncovered literally thousands of biblical manuscripts with no whiff of Hebrew copies in there.

This right here is by far the most extreme and ridiculous claim made in this thread to date. As I even mentioned before, even the Hexapla of Origen was an interlinear copy that had Hebrew in it. So to say "nobody had it, it didn't exist" is pretty much delusional. Not that I'm particularly surprised.

>preserved by the Church,

Oh, so this is probably supposed to be a clever escape here. You want to say only versions that the Roman church SAYS are preserved, are therefore preserved. Very clever word games I see. You say a Hebrew Old Testament APPROVED by your church "does not exist." Well, their authority to rewrite history is in question, and I find your assertion rather duplicitous and misleading in that case. We are not limiting ourselves to papal-approved documents.

And despite all this, the dispute about Greek or Hebrew even among papists goes all the way back to the first usage of a Greek translation of the OT, and we see even the Hexapla (source of the so-called Septuagint) also contained the Hebrew version among its six versions. To retcon all of this out of history is nothing I wouldn't expect from post Vatican II types.

Also, scholars have long since then found more sources for the original Old Testament predating the Masoretic rescension. Instead of giving it any kind of appropriate designation they merely resort to calling it "proto-masoretic." But don't be fooled by the name, it has nothing to do with them.