/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>819815

Because it's a translation. We don't do what Jesus did in particulars, but in virtues. Jesus probably didn't use anti-bacterial soap and hit the gym either, in fact He probably thought of the gymnasium (the Greek city institution) as sinful. If it was good enough for Him, why isn't it good enough for you?

But if you want a translation from the LXX there are individual copies of the English LXX OT and the OSB. God bless anon.

>>819816

But the Bible quotes from it directly. Surely, they would have had the sense to quote from a good source? At least in the sense that there are no errors.

Paul speaks positively about physical exercise in Corinthians, FWIW

>>819817

Oops, 1 Timothy 4:8

>For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.

>>819815

>Why do you need the Dead Sea Scrolls when you have the Septuagint?

We have to know when the Angel's are going too attack so our plan of human instermentality can come into fruition.

>>819815

>Why do you need the Dead Sea Scrolls when you have the Septuagint?

We don't, but they are good proof of the authenticity of the LXX over the (((Masoretic))) text. Without the Dead Sea Scrolls it would be just a "he said, she said".

>>819861

Weren't the Dead Sea scrolls proven to forgeries?

My view of the OT is slightly different from most fundamentalists. Jesus said in Matt 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. All concerning the Messiah has been fullfilled, which is why there is no more total inerrancy of the OT. Jots and tittles are no longer protected, and in many places the Septuatgint is a better representation of the text of the OT as it came from the pens of the human inspired authors. Ante Nicene church fathers refer to the Satanic Jews gradually changing their Massoretic text to try and remove the prophecies about Messiah. The NT is the place where salvation is now found in God's Word!

>>819890

Prophecy being fulfilled doesn't magically make the past a myth.

you don't, there's no reason God would hide the definitive version of his book as some musty scraps in a cave

Try the Apostolic Bible. Septuagint OT + Textus Receptus NT. That is the same texts used and quoted by the Apostles. It is the true Majority Text in one language!

I read the Bible in the Original Latin. Out of jokes, actually according to the Mystical City of God apparently Mark wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and he translated it to Latin when he was in Rome.

>>819932

Do you mean the ABP? I have one and its good, the only down side is there's no Deuterocanon.

>>819915

There could be reason for man to hide it, no?

>>819815

Cause they're really old

>>819815

DSS has a better rendering of Isaiah 9:5/6

Both MT (with DSS corrections) and LXX should be considered canon.

You can't definitively say Jesus used the LXX specifically. Only that the NT uses it, when quoting him. We know he could read the Hebrew scrolls placed in Synagogue, and there isn't evidence of much use of the LXX within Judea at the time. People spoke and wrote Aramaic, even for common/daily communications and mundane documents.

That said, what he was using still reflected the LXX. An underlying form of Hebrew similar to it, without some of the Masoretic edits. Same goes for the DSS and Samaritan (although they only used the Torah). All three of these agree with each other in places where the Masoretic departs.

No one "needs" them unless they're directing the Human Instrumentality Project.

That said, they're pretty winnie the pooh cool. And Jesus probably used a targum.

>>827134

Targums were highly glossed and not translations per se. More interpretative than even the "Message" and silly paraphrases like that. Every other sentence, there was some Rabbinic school (depending on the Targum version) injecting interpretations within the bible text itself.

They're definitely valuable to get insight on early readings, but far beneath Jesus' needs.

>>827142

If a targum would have been beneath Jesus' needs, wouldn't the Septuagint have been as well?

>>827148

I'm not one who thinks he relied on the LXX in the first place. But it's certainly better than a Targum, despite being an even more removed language. You can google various LXX and Targums to see the difference. LXX is a pretty literal translation overall. Targum was more a "reading aid", and there were multiple Targums, all products of particular regions and rabbinic schools.

The fact that Jesus is shown at 12 confounding old Rabbis tells me that he didn't need any of their "schools". He is the Word incarnate. Then, of course, he was shown taking out the scroll of Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry. This is significant. Orthodox Jews to this day insist that Hebrew scripture reading is a requirement, and an honor for males to this day is to be able to read the scriptures at the synagogue after their Bar Mitzvah, when they are officially declared adults. That Jesus was doing it in the 1st century tells me just how far back this tradition goes.

>>827150

Interesting take. I think you've answered the OP's question.

this is a (see >>827156 ) test

will delete in a minute

and another one just for the cheap seats

servers are a bit buggy - won't allow me to delete, sorry