If the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic, why do we use Bibles translated from the Masoretic? Why isn't the Septuagint more popular?
>>18624252Because Septuagint-onlyists are retards who only exist online. The Dead Sea scrolls vindicated the Masoretic text, disproving the myth that rabbis corrupted it.Also only the Torah was part of the original Septuagint translated by the 70. The rest of the Greek old testament was translated much later
>>18624290>The Dead Sea scrolls vindicated the Masoretic text, disproving the myth that rabbis corrupted it.They didn't.
>>18624290>Because Septuagint-onlyists are retards who only exist online.All of the Eastern Orthodox churches base their Bibles on the Septuagint.
Which one says all dogs go to heaven?
>>18624296Orthodogs have no real opinion worth respecting
>>18624294There are minor textual variations between the DSS and the LXX but how many of them are of any theological consequence?
>>18624433the stabbed/gnawed at my feet thing from psalms for instancechristcucks go wild for their fake biblical prophecies they tooootally don't care what the hebrews were doing before
>>18624740What are you even trying to say?
bump
>>18624294Look up the Isaiah scroll. The Hebrew text we use in reality dates back to ancient times. Of course we knew that even before the DSS were discovered.>>18624433>There are minor textual variations between the DSS and the LXX but how many of them are of any theological consequence?The DSS reflect the Hebrew text as well as some of the Greek text variations, so it is a mixed bag. The Isaiah scroll is a prominent example showing very close match with the Hebrew Isaiah we have had all along historically. People who seriously study this don't dispute this.If you meant to ask whether there were significant variations between the Hebrew language text and the LXX, the answer has to be yes. About 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah is missing from the LXX, and more than 30 entire proverbs are gone (not to mention those altered or missing parts of verses), with far too many further differences to list.One big example I can point out to you is in Genesis where the LXX changes the ages of the patriarchs in Noah's era, so that Methuselah outlives the flood by 14 years (rather than the year of his death being the same as the flood, as the Hebrew has it). This is prominent enough that the translators of the 2008 OSB (an English translation purported to be based on the LXX) actually used the Hebrew numbers here to avoid dealing with this.>>18624740>the stabbed/gnawed at my feet thing from psalms for instanceIs this referring to Psalm 22:16? The Hebrew text says "pierced" there. The same word is used elsewhere for digging or piercing things. The only confusion around this word is that modern "Hebrew scholars" have tried to redefine the word to cause confusion; actually the Hebrew itself does say "They pierced my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16, and the KJV accurately reflects this fact as well.
>>18626508Contradictions exist in the Hebrew text too, I don't see why that justifies using a centuries-later production.One thing I don't get is how do we know parthenos is a mistranslation of almah when the previous Hebrew manuscripts are mostly lost?
>>18626514>Contradictions exist in the Hebrew text tooNot that I've found, anon.>how do we know parthenos is a mistranslation of almahIsaiah 7:14 is a similar case to Psalm 22:16. Some guys who are biased against Christianity and not exactly honest tried to change the original definition later (such as in the 1917 JPS translation) and some modern people have subsequently been duped by this since they think these counterfeit people are somehow equal to the biblical Jews (protip: they're not - they are talmudic). But even if those people were what they claim to be, they still wouldn't have the authority to change the definition of Hebrew words thousands of years later just because they don't like it. Same with "pierced" being the correct translation in Psalm 22:16. That's a messianic prophecy of Christ just like Zechariah 12:10.
>>18626518>Some guys who are biased against Christianity and not exactly honest tried to change the original definition laterThat has always been the definition. The context within the verse makes it clear that the Christian imposed translation is simply false. In any case the Greek is authoritative, the authors of the NT used it and attributed its words to Jesus and the disciples. This just so happens to be one of the cases where the Greek is closer to what Christians want it to say. It's still not sufficient to prove your nonsensical "prophecies". But it does show your dishonesty.
>>18624296>All of the Eastern Orthodox churches base their Bibles on the Septuagint.The old Church Slavonic Bible used in liturgy is based on the Septuagint, but the official Russian Synodal Bible that every believer actually reads was translated from the Masoretic.t.Russky
>>18624252Because the Septuagint is an erroneous translation of the original Hebrew, while the Masoretic is the original Hebrew. It's not older, and even if it were older doesn't mean better.
>>18627193>>18627146Is there a translation based on the Septuagint, though? The Synodal Bible seems to be intended for other denominations as well, so it makes sense. Also, it's very old, is there no modern translation?>>18627193Come on, a quick Google search will show that the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic, what's the point in lying?>It's not older, and even if it were older doesn't mean better.It usually does for this kind of thing.
>>18627337The Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Masoretic text, it is indeed an authentic preservation of the Hebrew Bible
>>18627337>Is there a translation based on the Septuagint, though?Probably. There are a million translations by people who hate God and want to turn a buck. Who cares?>Come on, a quick Google search will show that the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic, what's the point in lying?I'm not lying. The text of the Masoretic was the original spoken by the LORD. Maybe the oldest Septuagint manuscripts are older than the oldest Masoretic manuscripts, I don't know and I don't care. The devil is going to step in to make forgeries and pervert scripture as early as possible. What part of this is lost on you?
>>18627347>The Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Masoretic text,No, they don't. If the Dead Sea Scrolls said something different then I would reject them. They found all sorts of weird stuff with those scrolls, not just genuine scriptures. But guess what? We never lost the genuine scriptures. You can go down to a dollar store right now and buy the entire counsel of God in the form of the King James Bible. But for some people that's not good enough, they have itching ears and need trash like the Book of Enoch or whatever cringe gnostic text du jour.
>>18624252>If [...], why [...]>Whyhttps://vocaroo.com/1lAq0Vl2Az5k^This is what you sound like.
>>18627391didn't ask
>>18627349>>18627354Dude, I'm starting to recognize you across threads. Get a name and tripcode and you can be one of the cool kids like me.
>>18627582>Get a name and tripcode and you can be one of the cool kids like me.Oh okay, how's this?
>>18627587Good enough
>>18627587That's the spirit, champ! Any minute now we'll all be rolling in hot /his/ pussy.
>>18624290You're trying to tell me that for centuries Jews believed Isaiah 7:14 meant virgin and suddenly now we have to believe it meant young women despite the OLDEST EXTANT manuscripts, in Greek, explicitly say virgin?
>>18627602>for centuries Jews believed Isaiah 7:14 meant virginThey didn’t. The original Hebrew word used was almah (עלמה) meaning “young woman” or “maiden” and does not necessarily mean virgin (referring to virgins is an obscure usage of almah). The specific Hebrew word for virgin is betulah (בתולה) and if Isaiah had intended to predict a miraculous Virgin Birth, he would have used betulah instead of almah to avoid any ambiguity. Even in the Septuagint, the Greek word that almah was translated to, parthénos (παρθένος), a word which is often translated to English as “virgin”, did not originally refer to virgins specifically, rather just like the Hebrew almah it referred to young women in general (especially since several of Solomon’s queens and concubines are called parthénoi even though they obviously weren’t virgins and in Genesis 34:3, Dinah is referred to as a parthénos even though she wasn’t a virgin by that point). The word was only used to specifically refer to virgins centuries after the Hebrew Bible was translated to Greek and the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 referring to a virgin was likely a result of this linguistic shift, especially since the author of the Gospel of Matthew quoted the Greek version and not the Hebrew original.(Cont)
>>18627602>>18627615Secondly, this prophecy wasn’t even related to the messiah and was already fulfilled 700 years before Jesus. Read the full passage for once, the prophecy was referring to contemporary young woman or almah in King Ahaz’s time (Isaiah’s wife) who would bear a son named Immanuel as a sign that the kingdoms of Aram and Israel would be defeated before the child grew up.The verses immediately following Isaiah 7:14 explain the timeframe:>"He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."The sign meant that within a few years, by the time a child born right then was old enough to know right from wrong, the military alliance threatening Jerusalem would be completely obliterated. This was already fulfilled before Jesus as when Isaiah’s wife gave birth, both Aram and Israel were completely obliterated by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. If Immanuel were a prophecy about Jesus, that would mean that Aram and Israel were still standing in the 1st century AD which is clearly an impossibility. The prophecy was about a contemporary event, not a messianic prediction.
>>18626508>The Hebrew text says "pierced" there. No it doesn't.>The same word is used elsewhere for digging or piercing things.It is used for digging, not piercing. It means dig.
>>18627615>The original Hebrew word used was almah (עלמה) meaning “young woman” or “maiden” and does not necessarily mean virginYou don't know this, the oldest extant manuscripts are in Greek.>>18627618>Secondly, this prophecy wasn’t even related to the messiah and was already fulfilled 700 years before Jesus.Couldn't it have a double meaning, thoughbeit?
>>18627337>Come on, a quick Google search will show that the Septuagint is older than the MasoreticGoogle will also tell you that sodomy is good, it isn't always right. Anything to do with Biblical topics is likely going to be incorrect and is at the least unreliable.Beyond Google, there is a whole industry out there dedicated to spreading false facts about Christianity. Some of this stuff that often repeated is, in fact, purposefully motivated and propagated as a way to undermine the Bible.One of the key things that such people work very hard to undermine is the historical authority of Scripture. What you are describing here is one of the ways they try to do it. They create and cast doubt on the idea of an historically preserved word simply because they are against the concept of God preserving his own words. There is an entire empire of doubt built on false claims that they've tried to create and draw people into. What you're repeating here is one of those claims that they have baselessly parroted, which then got into Google's algorithm, which then got to you. And you, anon, apparently believe everything it says.>>18627650>It means dig.Compare Psalm 40:6 and compare to the same idiom used in Isaiah 48:8. Digging and creating an opening in the flesh are both uses of this word, that's why the psalmist is applying it to his own ear when he was being formed in the womb (see also Psalm 139:14-16).
>>18624252The dirty little lie is that the Torah was actively being written and edited at this time so no version can really claim to be the "correct" one. There wasnt two version there was a thousand. Similarly the canonical gospels were not finalized until 3-400 CE, and they also existed in various versions. The canon used today was only established after Christianity became state religion under Constantine and Theodisius thus enabling a centralized Christian authority.As to the question why the Masoretic is used, it was not originally used. At first no version of the Torah was used. Then, during Constantine, the Septuagint was used. Then, under Theodisius, there was a huge anti-greek iconoclasm where a shitload of greek texts were burned, nicene Christianity was institutionalized and all rival versions were outlawed and their texts destroyed, and the name of the religion was institutionalized as "Christianity" and the rival version "Chrestianity" was outlawed and erased from all books. This is also when the Septuagint was ditched.The reason for all this was Julians short reign and the attempt to reinstall paganism. Julian was raised with Arianism, he had an hellenist enuch tutoring him, he fell in love with all things greek and made greek philosophy and etics the core of his government. He tried to hijack some popular parts of Christianity by doing a pagan "Chrestotes" program.This all gave the Christians a great big scare so when they eventually regained power, the Nicene anti-hellenist pro-pharisee faction won out since the hellenist faction was deeply discredited, and the nicenians used it to exterminate all opposition for good and even erase the memory of it. And that's the Christianity we have today.
>>18629245>bumpwhy the fuck would you bump crap like this?
>>18628597Comically retarded and wrong about basically everything.Stop listening to grifters.
>>18628597You're going to burn.
>>18630215>>18630222cope, seethe, dilate
>ifyou just know
>>18628597Are you a time traveler from an early 2000s atheist message board?
>>18628597truth nuke
>>18625848Its just insane atheist babbling, ignore it
>>18624290>The Dead Sea scrolls vindicated the MasoreticDo you gain kapparot chickens by lying online?
