• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

Jewish vs Christian Scriptures

Eliyahu

New Member
How do you come to the conclusion that the Jews were absolutely perfect in their translations?
You rely on what you claim to be perfect. Not so.
Bs'd

The arguments; "O.K, the New Testament is not reliable, but the Old Testament, which is much older, is also not reliable", or the argument; "The Jews changed the Old Testament after the rise of Christianity, in order to discredit Christianity" are not valid. The Torah, the most Holy part of the Hebrew Bible, is transmitted through the ages, over a time period of 3300 years with an astonishing degree of accuracy. There are very many rules that apply to the copying process of Torah scrolls: They may only be written on parchment of kosher animals, which must be sewn together with tendons of kosher animals. It may only be written by a Jew, dressed in a Jewish garment, in a state of ritual purity, which means that, amongst other things, he must wash himself in a ritual bath. Even his state of mind is subjected to certain rulings. The whole manuscript must be ruled before it is written upon, when three words are written without ruling, the whole manuscript is disqualified and must be buried. The ink may only be black, prepared according to an ancient recipe. The Torah scroll may only be copied from another authentic scroll, and absolutely no deviation is allowed. Absolutely no words may be written without first looking to the example. The length of each column must be between 48 and 60 rules, and the width must be 30 letters. Between the letters must be a space as wide as a hair, between the paragraphs a space of nine letters, between the books a space of three rules. Calculations have been made how many letters there are in the whole Torah, which letter is the middle, how many letters there are in every book of the Torah, how many times certain words and even letters appear in the text. And there are many, many more rules for copying Torah scrolls that are still in effect, up to this day. No other religion had such an extremely precise way of copying their holy texts. This shows the enormous respect that the Jewish people have for the sacred text, and this is the reason that the text is handed down through the millennia with an extreme grade of accuracy.

You know anybody else who transmitted their holy books like this?

The NT is based upon the corrupted LXX, because the NT writers couldn't read Hebrew. So they had to use a bad translation.

And then saying: "Look! The NT is in agreement with the LXX, and the Hebrew text differs, therefore the Hebrew text is wrong!" is of course nonsense.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
You know anybody else who transmitted their holy books like this?
Why would that matter? If the text they are copying is corrupted it doesn't matter how much tedium you go thru to make sure you copy it correctly, its still corrupted from the source material.

Why would you now claim that the source of your texts are infallible because they were copied with scrutiny? That doesn't make any sense.

Receiving Corrupted Texts

Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

History says “no” . . .

Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.

A stream cannot rise higher than its source. If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
You know anybody else who transmitted their holy books like this?
Why would that matter?
Bs'd

That matters of course a great deal. The ones with the most respect for their text and with the most exacting copying process are the most likely to have the correct text.

If the text they are copying is corrupted it doesn't matter how much tedium you go thru to make sure you copy it correctly, its still corrupted from the source material.
But those with a great respect for their text and a very exact copying process are of course very unlikely to start out with a corrupted text.

On the other hand, somebody with a sloppy copying process, even if they start out with a correct text, it will be corrupted very soon.

Why would you now claim that the source of your texts are infallible because they were copied with scrutiny? That doesn't make any sense.
Who is the source for the Tanach? The Jews.

Who copies their texts with the most care? The Jews.

And then you say the Christians have the best version of the Tanach??

Doesn't make too much sense.

Receiving Corrupted Texts

Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

History says “no” . . .

Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.

A stream cannot rise higher than its source. If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.

No copying process done by hand over thousands of years can be perfect.

The question is: Which is the most perfect? And then there is no question that the Jewish traditional text, carried through the millennia with great care, is the best.

Putting a corrupted translation like the LXX on a higher level is unscientific.
 

CTZonEdit

Site Administrator
Staff member
The question is: Which is the most perfect? And then there is no question that the Jewish traditional text, carried through the millennia with great care, is the best.
The only scientific evidence you have of "Jewish traditional" texts are The Masoretic Texts and they are flawed. I'll show you again.

What the Masorites did, between the 8th and 10th centuries, was they took the liberty within themselves to add vowel signs to the original Hebrew Alphabet. The original Hebrew alphabet had only 22 letters and had no vowels. The Hebrew alphabet is different from all other alphabets in this regard. For example, the English alphabet must take letters and put them into groups and call them words, but in Hebrew, the letters themselves are words.

"The names of the 22 letters in Hebrew are without dispute proper words. For they are not only significant of the letters of names but have, in general, if not in every instance, some other meaning in that language. Thus, the mysterious ciphers which the English reader meets with and wonders over as he reads the 119th Psalm may be resolved according to some of the Hebrew grammar as follows." The Grammar of English Grammar, 9th Edition, 1865.

Then this book lists the various letters. For example, the letter ALEPH. When the 119th Psalm opens up, the very first letter you run into is ALEPH. It means "an ox or a leader". It is the first letter of their alphabet, (and also means the number one). The original Hebrew alphabet is the only alphabet that has this characteristic peculiar to it; there are no other alphabets that have this peculiar characteristic. He lists the other 21 letters also, but it will get involved so I will just mention a few more.

BETH is the next letter, and it means "house" (and also means the number two). GIMEL, the third letter, refers to a camel (and also means the number three). It's obvious that we get our word "camel" from "GIMEL". So, you're a sojourner, your house is moving, and somebody is the leader, and that's Christ! DALETH, or "D" as we would call it, means "a door"! And who's the door? That would be Christ (John 10:7,9). DALETH also means the number four. This is all the subject matter the 119th Psalm concerns itself with, the original Hebrew alphabet. That's why it's the longest chapter in the entire scriptures!

Now, if I start taking liberties within myself and say, "Gee, there aren't any vowels in this alphabet. Why don't I start adding these little points in there and I'll re-create something here." What have I now done to a language that was perfect at its conception? We aren't supposed to be tampering with the Word of God. We are not to take away or add to God's Word (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Jeremiah 26:2, Revelation 22:18-19). But this is what the Masorites did.
Your claim of Jewish tradition and perfection is unfounded. Here is even more evidence:

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) like the magnificent Isaiah scroll closely follow the Masoretic Text (MT), but there are a few exceptions. For example, Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" is missing in the MT. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out. Another important difference is in I Samuel 11 where the MT is shortened. The longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter.

Three of the most important Biblical texts from Qumran are: (1) The Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1 which has two different text types, with about 1,375 differences from the MT. (2) The Habakkuk Commentary from Cave 1 which uses the pesher method of interpretation, and the name Yahweh is written in paleo-Hebrew. (3) The Psalm scroll from Cave 11 contains 41 canonical psalms and 7 apocryphal psalms mixed in among them. The order of the psalms differs largely from the MT (Wurthwein 1979, 32).
And one last piece of evidence:

John Allegro, one of the original translation team, the first to be put in charge of cave 4 material and the only non-religious memember of the team, The Dead Sea Scrolls Pelican, 1956, (66).[he describes how Frank Cross in 1954 found a place where the text (DSS) seemed at odds with the MT. He began to find more and more places, and then discovered that these texts which differed from the MT agreed with the LXX. Now this is a Hebrew text which agrees with LXX over MT so it's an older textual family but obviously the ancestor of the LXX readings. He goes on:

"His excitement mounting Cross began to refer to the principal versions and almost immediately saw that this text corresponded with the Greek translation. The precious pieces joined to others and time and time again he found correspondences with LXX against MT, until at the end of the week he was able to affirm that he had the answer to the text-critic's dream, a Hebrew text from the same text family of tradition as that used by the ancient translators of the LXX..."

"It seems now that, to scholars engaged on this work in the future, Qumran has offered a new basis for a confidence in the LXX in at least the Historical books, which should allow them to accept better readings of that version almost as readily as if they were found in the Hebrw MT. In other words, each reading in the future must be judges on it's merits not on any preconsieved notion of the supiriority of the Hebrew version simpley because it is Hebrew.. If the Greek offers a better reading than that ought to be taken and put in the text of the translation..."(81).
This is why we reject the claimed "superiority" of the Hebrew in light of ALL the scriptural scientific evidence. You hold on to Hebrew being superior in spite of the overwhelming majority of evidence to the contrary.

That seems highly illogical.

Putting a corrupted translation like the LXX on a higher level is unscientific.
You place the inferior MT over everything in your worldview in spite of the evidence against it.

But even beyond these points, from a purely objective, scientific point-of-view, when we apply the science of Textual Criticism to this controversy, we must again decide in favor of the Greek Septuagint. We remember that the fundamental rule of Textual Criticism is usually that the older the text, the better, and the complete Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by 650-700 years.

The second rule that we must implement is that not all manuscripts are of the same value. Again, this value issue is clear for these two witnesses: the Septuagint is representative of a 3rd century BC Hebrew text; the Masoretic is representative of a 7th-9th century AD revision of the Hebrew.

Thus, there can be no doubt as to which text is to be preferred. The Septuagint is superior in every way to the Judaized Masoretic Text (V. S. Herrell, The History of the Bible, p. 51-57).
 

John logan

Getting Started
I was called by the Holy Spirit to repent of my sins. I did I've asked God to guide me he has to watch over me he has to send me a wife he dijesus said how hard it would be for those who hadn't seen to believe. It is. Jesus said he was the messiah he was. How else was he killed and risen and seen by 500 people. We are free to follow Satan or Jesus. Why else the histry of Christians who continually help Israel. What can be the purpose of trying to disprove the bible and religious writings left for us.
 

Eliyahu

New Member
I was called by the Holy Spirit to repent of my sins. I did I've asked God to guide me he has to watch over me he has to send me a wife he dijesus said how hard it would be for those who hadn't seen to believe. It is. Jesus said he was the messiah he was. How else was he killed and risen and seen by 500 people. We are free to follow Satan or Jesus. Why else the histry of Christians who continually help Israel. What can be the purpose of trying to disprove the bible and religious writings left for us.
Bs"d

The dead sea scrolls are full of mistakes and spelling errors. I'm not saying the MT is perfect, but when I have to choose I go for the traditional text.
 
Top