/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>697212

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm

Read from 77

>>697216

I'd like actual arguments please.

>>697217

Thank you, I shall look into it.

>>697212

Try Isaiah 53 if you're having a hard time figuring out where that Book is about Jesus Christ.

>>697221

Is the KJV version of Isaiah based more on the masoretic or on the septuagint?

>>697221

Jewish translations of scripture are irrelevant because they make up their own modern definitions. The reason why the jewish translation says something wrong is because of that, not because of anything to do with the original Hebrew/Syriack Chaldee language sources. So then it's dishonest to place a jewish translation side by side with a faithful translation as if there were no difference.

The KJV correctly translates the word in Isaiah 7:14, but you didn't mention it there. So why did you simply leave it out there and not put it in the other column?

As for the rest of them, all there. Just because someone made an edited version of the OT (the modern LXX) to line up with NT quotes doesn't actually make it more accurate. Here is what they were really pointing to:

Psalm 148:2 (KJV)

Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isaiah 29:18 (KJV)

And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Psalm 22:16

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zephaniah 3:12

I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.

—

The modern LXX takes parts of the NT and introduces them to the OT. The greatest example of this is when the modern LXX writer took the number 75 from Acts 7:14 and implanted it into both Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but NOT in Deuteronomy 10:22 where it still says "70" therefore making it inconsistent with itself. The modern LXX is corrupt because people with access to the NT altered it to fit that in various ways.

The original Old Testament, still in the original language, actually says 70 persons in all three places (Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deut. 10:22), making it consistent and unaltered. No one had an opportunity to slip anything in, God actively protected his original word from change throughout the ages.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. - Isaiah 40:8

Some more scripture quotes:

Psalm 72:17

His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Psalm 8:5-6

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psalm 34:20

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 53:5

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Proverbs 30:4-6

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

>>697289

>The original Old Testament, still in the original language, actually says 70 persons in all three places (Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deut. 10:22), making it consistent and unaltered. No one had an opportunity to slip anything in, God actively protected his original word from change throughout the ages.

What are you talking about? The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the LXX was translated from a reliable manuscript tradition. Given the fact that the MT omits numerous passages concerning Jesus, that the LXX was used almost universally by Christians until Jerome in the 4th century, and that the MT is literally what kike Talmudists use, the LXX is clearly the inspired one here. The kikes literally made the MT to fit their own agenda in order to counter Christianity. And this isn't polemic, this is literally what they did. The kikes based it from a simply bad manuscript tradition and made it into a completely uninspired piece of garbage that abominations like the KJV are based off of, although when the KJV translators found problems in the MT they went back to the LXX for reference as in the case of Isaiah 7:14.

>>697328

Is there a good translation of the septuagint into English?

>>697221

>>697274

>>697285

>>697289

>>697328

>>697329

>>697330

Muslim anon interjecting here for just a moment out of curiosity.

You guys are basically admitting your scriptures are corrupt, so why do you still believe in them? Believe the Qur'an which corrects all the mistakes in the Bible and is final revelation of Allah (SWT).

>>697331

Go away and don't come back. Don't do taqiyya here.

>>697331

Have you considered the possibility that some translators weren't moved by the Holy Spirit? Probably not, given that your text most certainly wasn't written by men working for God the first time it was put to paper.

>>697336

>Responding to previous post that got deleted:

>I've mentioned every single one listed. So where is it?

Literally look at the image >>697221 posted.

Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion” in the MT thus denying that the Messiah had to die for our sins.

Isaiah 53:11 the word “light of life” is omitted by the MT thus denying the resurrection of Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.” in MT.

Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the MT.

Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” in MT (or in some versions “the city of destruction")

Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted in MT denying the miracles of Christ.

In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears." in the MT, thus the MY denies the incarnation of Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted in MT.

Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened in the MT to deny the deity of Christ.

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman" to deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

>>697361

>w-we wuz apostolics!!!

>john the BAPTIST not john the catholic!

The New Testament uses the LXX, even your beloved KJV has contradictions in it because of this:

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

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 – LXX; make “His paths straight.” MT; make “level in the desert a highway.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 – LXX; I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. MT; I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 – LXX; teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. MT; a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the LXX, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 LXX; crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. MT; omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 LXX; and recovering of sight to the blind. MT; the opening of prison to them that are bound.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 – LXX; who has believed our “report?” MT; who has believed our “message?”

Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 – LXX; Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt. MT; “seventy” people went.

Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 LXX; the tent of “Moloch” and star of god of Rephan. MTT; “your king,” shrine, and star of your god.

Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 – LXX; you “scoffers” and wonder and “perish.” MTT; you “among the nations,” and “be astounded.”

Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 – LXX; the rest (or remnant) of “men.” MT; the remnant of “Edom.”

Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 LXX; the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. MT; blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).

Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 LXX; whose mouth is full of curses and “bitterness.” MT; cursing and “deceit and oppression.”

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 LXX; only a remnant of them “will be saved.” MT; only a remnant of them “will return.”

Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 LXX; when I take away their sins. MT; this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.

Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 – LXX; the root of Jesse…”to rule the Gentiles.” MT; stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 – LXX; “I will destroy” the wisdom of the wise. MTT; wisdom of their wise men “shall perish.”

1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 LXX; O death, where is thy “sting?” MT; O death, where are your “plagues?”

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 – LXX; let all the angels of God worship Him. MT; the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 – LXX; “but a body hast thou prepared for me.” MT; “mine ears hast thou opened.”

James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 LXX; God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. MT; He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.

1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 – LXX; he “committed no sin.” MT; he “had done no violence.”

There's even more but it's just too numerous to list.

I would use the Church Fathers but you're a heretic so you wouldn't count them worthy.

>This is the genetic fallacy, you haven't really proven anything with this, also the same could be said of catholics many of which use translations based on it. I've heard cults argue that we shouldn't use the scripture because there exists some other group that abuses it, that's not an argument.

Maybe so but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be consider. Kikes are evil spawns from Satan.

>It says 75 persons in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but 70 persons in Deuteronomy 10:22. Meanwhile the original says 70 in all three places. The only place that the modern LXX could have gotten the number 75 is from Acts 7:14 in the New Testament.

Can I have a source on this? Are you also saying the New Testament is wrong? Wow I thought you KJV lovers were all about Sola Fide Bible is literal absolutely infallible in science and history and everything. Guess not?

You also know that there are two Dead Seas Scrolls which have this 75 tradition right? Again, confirmation that the Septuagint is based on a reliable manuscript tradition. See 4Q13 and 4Q1.

>>697220

>I'd like actual arguments please.

>Like an opinion on how the Greek is a mistranslation is an argument.

>>697331

If the word of God becomes corrupt beyond repair then God is incompetent and his prophets unreliable. Islam is predicated on God being inept. Jesus revelation was lost within his life time or shortly after in Islam. And his closest apostles are unreliable?

Our scriptures are fine , despite minor translation arguments. You believe revelations get to totally lost and corrupted. Allah is inept in your deen.

isaiah 7 is about reconciling the scattered and divided house of israel which at this point of the prophesy has been divided into judah and samaria following the days of the wars between rehoboam (judah) and jeroboam (ephraim, v. 17).

samaria (represented metonymally as ephraim, tribe of the son of joseph who received the right hand blessing by isaac in genesis 48) by this point is in assyrian captivity and that Jesus will reconcile the dispersion and any who believes in Christ.

>>697450

also the synoptic gospel of matthew which thematically emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of the old testament prophecies references this verse in isaiah 7 and 8 in matthew 1:23 (as emmanuel being the greek transliteration of the hebrew rendering of “immanuel” in isaiah)

>>697285

Don't ever pay attention to this guy, he thinks that Oriegen wrote LXX even though in this very thred there is contrary evidence and evidence for Jewish corruption via Justin Martyr

>>697331

OH HO HO HO HO

>>697361

>>697362

You didn't see my post: >>697285

Already answered all of it.

>Are you also saying the New Testament is wrong?

No, the 75 of Stephen doesn't include Joseph himself or his two sons. Joseph didn't call himself into Egypt (see Acts 7:14) or his two sons, they were already there. Meanwhile, the list in Genesis 46 includes Joseph (66 plus Jacob, Joseph and his two sons).

If you take out Joseph and the people who weren't even born in Genesis 46, and then add the wives (who were NOT counted in Genesis 46, see verse 26, but were counted by Stephen) then you get 75. Therefore both the OT and NT are correct, but someone tried to "fix" the number in the OT in their translation to match the NT.

The modern version of the LXX says 75 in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5, but then they forgot to make it say 75 in Deuteronomy 10:22, so it still says 70 there. All versions correctly say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22, but Septuagint was edited to match Acts 7:14 in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1; they merely forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22 and left it as 70. It was some shoddy work.

>>697670

Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls say 75 as well and they predate the NT by over 200 years. The original number was 75 in the Hebrew, showing once again that the Septuagint is correct

Go to 27 mins in this video, or watch the whole thing to learn why the Septuagint is definitive.

>>697212

Hebrew doesn't have a word that solely means virgin. It has two words, almah and betulah, that refer to young women most of the time, but can mean virgin in certain contexts. Isaiah 7:14 is one of those contexts.

>>697729

https://pastebin.com/4HDAsUBK

I'm just gonna make a pastebin because I've already dealt with this video multiple times and I don't feel like making a multipost again. I should probably make a copy-paste one of these days for the fallacious chart that was already posted here as well, because it keeps getting posted despite all of its mistakes and outright misrepresentations. The KJV is correct in Isaiah 7:14 because it translates the Hebrew text correctly. So why doesn't that register in your head? Why keep posting it when it's so easily shown wrong?

If some guy took some piece of the New Testament and incorporated it into his book, would that "prove" that the apostles quoted his book? No. It would prove he had the wrong motives.

>>697521

It gets worse. From the same person in the video.

>>698027

The KJV is a terrible and inaccurate translation that used corrupted texts as its base. It's not surprising that the KJV has many errors, not only throughout Isaiah but in all of the books of both the Old and New Testaments. Get a Greek Interlinear Bible if you want to see just how much of a clusterwinnie the pooh the KJV is

>>698156

i like the kjv.