/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Quick rundown on the conflict?

What am I looking at? I'm not Catholic.

But I'll say off the bat that Catholics have an unsettling knack of disembodying the divine a lot (such as the Sacred Heart like what it seems like in the pic.. or how they view the Eucharistic adoration outside of Jesus command to "Take, eat..").

>>758176

>>758178

http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

>>758182

Ah, something I'm slightly familiar with then. Just not that artwork (sacred heart imagery wasn't even used in St. Jerome's day).

St. Augustine was definitely right on this (although he used a pretty poor Old Latin translation himself.. but at least the base texts it used were the LXX). The LXX is now even more vindicated than in their day, because of Qumran, and that we've discovered much of the base Hebrew text the LXX was similar to. Jerome unfortunately didn't know of it. He was sincere in wanting to go back to original texts and thought he could create something like the LXX for Latin, but he's only as good as his sources. Same goes for the KJV or whatnot.

It saddens me that it's taken this long for the non-Eastern church to acknowledge the importance of the LXX. Or that they actually trusted Jews before the Church… as if the latter was more worthy of suspicion and tainting things. One step in an Orthodox church and you'll see how much they revere the holy scriptures. There's been no justification in treating them as careless stewards. Rabbis, otoh, come from the same group that killed Christ. And they're the ones without the agenda? They somehow care about the "words" of scripture more… even though they murdered the Word himself? Please.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html

The Church officially decided on using St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the Council of Trent. Although i'm inclined to agree with St.Augustine on this issue, out of the virtue of obedience, I side with St.Jerome

Yep Augustine was definitely right.

Although St. Jerome used an earlier version of the Masoretic text and when in doubt he looked at the LXX sometimes.

Its free from error obviously but the translation would be better with the LXX since most fathers believe it was inspired and its free from Jewish corruption.

Seems like no matter what, the Church makes mistakes…this is worrying me more and more: maybe we all have come to a false faith…

>>758369

Ok kid

>>758369

Only an issue for Catholics

>>758376

>Only an issue for Catholics

Try as they might, they'll never enshrine Latin, like Hebrew and Greek.

And no, Jerome didn't single out every instance that was pozzed and refer to the LXX. I can point to several things he missed, which are clear poz attempts by Rabbis.

For instance, the age of Shem's descendents in Genesis 11. You'll notice in the Vulgate/MT/KJV/etc that the "begats" are around 30-35 years of age. Every man begat a son around 30 years old. If you calculate them to their full extent, you realize that Shem actually outlives ALL of his own descendents and lives far into the age of Abraham. This was to support the Rabbinic idea (which they still teach to this day) that Shem was secretly Melchizedek when he met Abraham.

Why would they do this, you wonder? Witness the insidiousness of Jews:

First one must think like a Jew and be always on the watch of what they fixate (Jerome didn't do this). There is absolutely nothing more important to them than Levitical primacy. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, the NT says the Levitical priesthood is nothing compared to Christ, the true high priest, "in the order of Melchizedek". Hebrews goes on to explain Melchizedek's unknown origins, and how he was greater than Levi, for he blessed Levi himself while Levi was still in the loins of Abraham.

This was almost a killing blow to Levitical elements in rabbinicism. It convinced a lot of Jews in the early days. But rabbis decided to tamper with the scriptures themselves in a less obvious way by altering Shem's bloodline as I said before in Genesis 11. "Look!" they said. "Melchizedek was actually Shem. And if he was Shem, he was the same bloodline as Abraham and Levi.. and therefore not a different priesthood blessing the Levitical priesthood. No, he was just a proto-Levite."

And with that, they propped up this doctrine that exists to this day (ask any Jew) that Levites always existed, because of Shem.

Only the Septuagint carries the original text, where Shem's descedents aren't lowered to 30-35 age range. They're ONE HUNDRED and 30-35 years on average.. and therefore, Shem naturally dies before his descendants, and isn't alive in Abraham's time at all.. and therefore not secretly disguised as Melchizedek.

>>758172

I love Saint Jerome, he's my patron saint, but I have to side against him here. The Septuagint is older and divinely inspired while there is reason to believe that the Masoratic was heavily edited by the pharisees and therefore is not the original manuscript. The Septuagint better agrees with the New Testament and was actually divinely inspired (according to tradition).

But Saint Jerome's heart was in the right place, there is no way he could have known all of this, and I'm sure his Latin Vulgate is an exceptional translation worthy of its legendary and holy status.

St. Jerome was aware of more obvious things. For example Psalm 21:17 (Psalm 22:16 in Prot bibles).

"For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet."

"Theyhave dug/pierced my hands and feet" is prophetic of Christ. Jerome knew this. But the Masoretic he used actually has a nonsensical replacement word that looks similar and reads "Like a lion at my hands and feet". You'll see this confusion in many bibles with the footnote "Meaning of Hebrew unclear" (funny how prophetic references to Christ in Hebrew often take on this "unclear" status. It's all just a strange accident.. Fate just somehow chose references to Christ to cause confusion).

The LXX has it clearly as "They pierced my hands and feet", and for years, scholars smugly thought the Greeks were wrong in reading this unclear Hebrew text.

Lo and behold, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and it clearly has the LXX in Hebrew form. "They pierced my hands and feet."

He caught a lot of these (so did the KJV translators), but he didn't catch the subtle stuff.

>>758422

>Lo and behold, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and it clearly has the LXX in Hebrew form. "They pierced my hands and feet."

<Oy vey I though you had burned those scrolls Isaac.

Its sad to see that St. Jerome and protestants fell for the Hebrew text must be the best one. And in theory it should be and Jerome and other translators did it in good faith.

Man even St. Augustine said although he preferred the LXX that he didn't actually believe the Jews had the balls to do that, he calls it some kind of conspiracy theory.

The translation of the vulgate is excellent and like you said Jerome detected and corrected lots of jewry (well in part because it is said he possessed a beta version of the Masoretic text) but still lots of beautiful prophecies about Christ in the OT are lost. Damn even the virginal birth of Christ is ommited by the Jews although Jerome puts it back as well as the history of Susana in Daniel (perhaps the Jews removed it because they identified themselves with the bad guys?)

Its sad that there isn't yet a LXX version of the OT in Catholic bibles as of today, but interest in the LXX is increasing today among Catholic circles so one can only hope.

>>758550

>Its sad to see that St. Jerome and protestants fell for the Hebrew text must be the best one. And in theory it should be and Jerome and other translators did it in good faith.

>

>Man even St. Augustine said although he preferred the LXX that he didn't actually believe the Jews had the balls to do that, he calls it some kind of conspiracy theory.

>

>The translation of the vulgate is excellent and like you said Jerome detected and corrected lots of jewry (well in part because it is said he possessed a beta version of the Masoretic text) but still lots of beautiful prophecies about Christ in the OT are lost. Damn even the virginal birth of Christ is ommited by the Jews although Jerome puts it back as well as the history of Susana in Daniel (perhaps the Jews removed it because they identified themselves with the bad guys?)

>

>Its sad that there isn't yet a LXX version of the OT in Catholic bibles as of today, but interest in the LXX is increasing today among Catholic circles so one can only hope.

Amen to all of that (I'm the poster above btw.. my IP chjanged). I don't want to be too hard on Jerome (or other vulgar translations based off of him) or even the KJV, since, as I mentioned, they had enough good faith to spot these errors and stick with a traditional Christian reading.

This, in essence, is what sets the Douay and KJV apart from pretty much all modern translations. They didn't cast doubt on Christian reading, in favor of Jewish ones. Modern bibles, almost as a rule, will do this very thing. And I'm start to think it's deliberately destructive as well. Because we've had the Dead Sea Scrolls for 50 years now, and modern scholars still favor the Masoretic readings at this point (the existing DSS don't account for every text, but many do exist.. so they have no excuse for ignoring it now).

>>758413

That's really interesting. How do you know this though?

>>758666

I think it can be inferred by this later development of a Shem = Melchizedek doctrine. Rabbis/scribes, if anything, don't slack off about genealogy and Levitical legitimacy (even in Paul's day, he points this out to Timothy.. to stay away from Jews and their "vain genealogies" - 1 Tim 1:4). They should have spotted it before, since it's a huge counter to their religion and pertains to the very core of their claims. This idea that Jesus is a High Priest was hard for even the 1st century to wrap it's head around, as he was from the tribe of Judah. The Epistle of Hebrews silenced them on it, by saying he was a priest in the order of Melchizedek. They didn't respond until much later. I find it strange.

Secondly, these age differences have always existed in the Septuagint and Samaritan, but not just that… two of their own: Philo (a Jew, but a Platonic philosopher) and Josephus. They also touched on Israelite history and used the longer chronology. They knew Hebrew as well, so they weren't just relying on the LXX. Funny that, two Jews from the 1st century who had nothing to do with Christianity still used this and never pushed a Shem=Melchizedek doctrine.

>>758550

>perhaps the Jews removed it because they identified themselves with the bad guys?

IIRC it's because the Susana portion shows that Jewish elders are capable of being evil.

When your leaders kill the Son of God.. and when you yourselves start writing in your Talmud that this Jesus is boiling in a pile of excrement in hell.. or that the Virgin Mary was really a whore who was raped by Pantera the Roman soldier and that Jesus is nothing but a mad man and bastard..

Well, you're pretty much capable of anything at that point. What is mangling a few "words" when you murdered the Word himself?

>>758654

>Because we've had the Dead Sea Scrolls for 50 years now, and modern scholars still favor the Masoretic readings at this point (the existing DSS don't account for every text, but many do exist.. so they have no excuse for ignoring it now).

This. Choosing the MT before could be defended because we'll it's likely the original Hebrew text.

With the DSS it has been proved the MT is a fake, it has some literary value in those few parts which it has in common with the LXX, because some expressions sound better in Hebrew but other than that there's nothing good in it.

Every Bible should use the LXX as the main structure of every Bible now that has been proved that the MT is Jewish bullshit. And people should have seen it coming. The redaction of that text was completed way after Jesus by the same dudes that were btfo into oblivion by Him.

>>758681

Yep that's true. One might think at first if they werent afraid of messing with the scriptures and facing God's wrath, but wait they killed God Himself. Everything else is a kids play.

Catholics were even tolerant to them in the middle ages because we thought they were only those poor souls who rejected Christ and lived by the OT law.

We couldn't be more wrong. We weren't aware of the changes that had been happening to Judaism after the 1st century AD.

It was a converted Jew who casually mentioned the Talmud to the astonishment of all his monastic friends.

That same dude told that to the pope and he was surprised no one had ever heard of the Talmud. The winnie the poohers kept they're disgusting book hidden from the world for 600 years.

Then in a massive shit storm in France they admitted to the King that the Talmud could be defended but they couldn't and say it wasn't our Jesus and Mary lol.

More some fake gospels baspheming Christ were pread during the Middle Ages by the Jews themselves not even to mention the times they stole the Holy Eucharisty from churches to perform their satanic rituals.

Like Saint Augustine said: "they are the image of Judas, who sells the Lord for silver".

And the church fathers didn't even know half of the story.

how come jews claim only the torah (and not the entire tanakh) was translated into greek before Christ (so that septuagint was a greek trans. of the torah) if there are multiple quotes from other books in the NT that agree better with the LXX (right?)?

jews like to say only 5% of the DSS texts found were in greek, but it doesn't mean anything. The point is: does the LXX agree with the hebraic versions of the DSS over the MT?

Encyclopedia Britannica has this:

>Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.

the fact psalm 151 is in the DSS and LXX and not in the MT might be enough