Old Testament Documents and Doctrine

[Musicmaster]

The Lord always has ways of authenticating His wondrous word in ways we cannot imagine.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

I like how this session on video answers one of the most popular questions, with the other being, "What is in those scrolls?" Although the latter is not the object of the video and the answer given, the interviewee gives a good, broad answer to both questions in this short that is well worth considering. It strikes at the core arguments in modern, Biblical Criticism that was not an item in the past that was of any great concern to believers.

Today, however, this is a good beginning to your exploration of the credibility behind the Bible that supports its reliability beyond just archaeological finds, but also the people, the teachings, the history of nations and peoples...it ALL finds credible support for authenticity and accuracy that no other book in all the word can hope to even touch.

 

[BibleLover]

The Lord always has ways of authenticating His wondrous word in ways we cannot imagine.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

I like how this session on video answers one of the most popular questions, with the other being, "What is in those scrolls?" Although the latter is not the object of the video and the answer given, the interviewee gives a good, broad answer to both questions in this short that is well worth considering. It strikes at the core arguments in modern, Biblical Criticism that was not an item in the past that was of any great concern to believers.

Today, however, this is a good beginning to your exploration of the credibility behind the Bible that supports its reliability beyond just archaeological finds, but also the people, the teachings, the history of nations and peoples...it ALL finds credible support for authenticity and accuracy that no other book in all the word can hope to even touch.

Compare the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah written during the 2nd century BC with our modern versions of Isaiah. They're basically identical.

As for authenticating the Bible, remember Scripture is self-authenticating to God's Elect.

 

[Prim90]

The Lord always has ways of authenticating His wondrous word in ways we cannot imagine.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

I like how this session on video answers one of the most popular questions, with the other being, "What is in those scrolls?" Although the latter is not the object of the video and the answer given, the interviewee gives a good, broad answer to both questions in this short that is well worth considering. It strikes at the core arguments in modern, Biblical Criticism that was not an item in the past that was of any great concern to believers.

Today, however, this is a good beginning to your exploration of the credibility behind the Bible that supports its reliability beyond just archaeological finds, but also the people, the teachings, the history of nations and peoples...it ALL finds credible support for authenticity and accuracy that no other book in all the word can hope to even touch.

Not only the reliability Old Testament documents but also the verification of much of the New Testament being written in the apostolic era with portions of the New Testament being discovered too.

 

[Major]

The Lord always has ways of authenticating His wondrous word in ways we cannot imagine.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

I like how this session on video answers one of the most popular questions, with the other being, "What is in those scrolls?" Although the latter is not the object of the video and the answer given, the interviewee gives a good, broad answer to both questions in this short that is well worth considering. It strikes at the core arguments in modern, Biblical Criticism that was not an item in the past that was of any great concern to believers.

Today, however, this is a good beginning to your exploration of the credibility behind the Bible that supports its reliability beyond just archaeological finds, but also the people, the teachings, the history of nations and peoples...it ALL finds credible support for authenticity and accuracy that no other book in all the word can hope to even touch.

They had NO effect on Christianity!

 

[Indentured Servant]

The Lord always has ways of authenticating His wondrous word in ways we cannot imagine.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

I like how this session on video answers one of the most popular questions, with the other being, "What is in those scrolls?" Although the latter is not the object of the video and the answer given, the interviewee gives a good, broad answer to both questions in this short that is well worth considering. It strikes at the core arguments in modern, Biblical Criticism that was not an item in the past that was of any great concern to believers.

Today, however, this is a good beginning to your exploration of the credibility behind the Bible that supports its reliability beyond just archaeological finds, but also the people, the teachings, the history of nations and peoples...it ALL finds credible support for authenticity and accuracy that no other book in all the word can hope to even touch.

Many have asked the prime question in this video, which is, what effect did the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" have upon the Bible?

The DSS allow us to see things that, over the years, have been overlooked, or missing...

I found in the Great Isaiah Scroll that neither Lucifer nor "morning star," are found in 14:12. It is actually the word, "howling." ("How you have fallen from heaven, howling...")

One researcher found that the personal name of the one we so often refer to as "Melchizedek," existed in these older texts. The name translates, in English, as YHWH.

 

[Musicmaster]

The DSS allow us to see things that, over the years, have been overlooked, or missing...

I found in the Great Isaiah Scroll that neither Lucifer nor "morning star," are found in 14:12. It is actually the word, "howling." ("How you have fallen from heaven, howling...")

One researcher found that the personal name of the one we so often refer to as "Melchizedek," existed in these older texts. The name translates, in English, as YHWH.

Can you provide links to articles and/or videos that give more info on all that?

MM

 

[Indentured Servant]

Can you provide links to articles and/or videos that give more info on all that?

MM

I had the exact article/link until my computer crashed. I have found reference to the interchangeability of the title Melchizedek and the name YHWH on the website for the Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archeology, in an article titled, "Uncovering the Identity of Melchizedek: Dead Sea Scroll 11QMelch."

I am still trying to locate the actual photo documentation by the person who discovered this. I'll post of I can find it.


As for the Great Isaiah Scroll, v.14:12, I found that and translated it. The Hebrew word is used twice in that chapter, and is self-confirming as the word "howling." My research was inspired by an article about St Jerome, who was responsible for the translation. The article revealed that he knew he'd mistranslated it, but his efforts to correct it were ignored. I researched the scroll and identified the verse in question, and spent two days confirming the translation.

 

[Musicmaster]

"hêlēl" is what's in the Masoretic texts produce to us from Isaiah 14:12, which was translated from Hebrew texts from about the fourth century AD by the hands of rabbis that I don't totally trust. I'm more partial to the Septuagint.

So, what's the Hebrew word that allegedly should be translated as "howling"?

MM

 

[Indentured Servant]

"hêlēl" is what's in the Masoretic texts produce to us from Isaiah 14:12, which was translated from Hebrew texts from about the fourth century AD by the hands of rabbis that I don't totally trust. I'm more partial to the Septuagint.

So, what's the Hebrew word that allegedly should be translated as "howling"?

MM

A variation of הֵילִילִי, the first word in Isaiah 14:31. The Scroll can be accessed online, but I have a photo somewhere that I can probably access. The online scroll is interactive and can be viewed. I no longer have the exact link... (It was 7 years ago, and that computer has unfortunately met an untimely end)

 

[Musicmaster]

A variation of הֵילִילִי, the first word in Isaiah 14:31. The Scroll can be accessed online, but I have a photo somewhere that I can probably access. The online scroll is interactive and can be viewed. I no longer have the exact link... (It was 7 years ago, and that computer has unfortunately met an untimely end)

Ok, so can you explain the voracity of that scroll? How has anyone established that the scroll of which you speak is more authoritative, as being representative of the original autographs, than all the other copies and translations?

MM

 

[Indentured Servant]

Ok, so can you explain the voracity of that scroll? How has anyone established that the scroll of which you speak is more authoritative, as being representative of the original autographs, than all the other copies and translations?

MM

It's been documented as the oldest and most complete scroll of Isaiah ever found. It predates the other scrolls by at least 1,200 years.

However, the translation error in 14:12 comes from the Latin Vulgate. Our English translations are all based on this error that occured in a language not used in scripture. The word came from Hebrew to Latin to English. That's just not a method that any translator should use to preserve accuracy.

 

[Musicmaster]

It's been documented as the oldest and most complete scroll of Isaiah ever found. It predates the other scrolls by at least 1,200 years.

However, the translation error in 14:12 comes from the Latin Vulgate. Our English translations are all based on this error that occured in a language not used in scripture. The word came from Hebrew to Latin to English. That's just not a method that any translator should use to preserve accuracy.

I see. Hmm. So, what about the Septuagint, which dates back to about the fourth to fifth century BC? You see, I try to be very careful when appealing to antiquity, and thereby assuming that the oldest is always the best copy of the original. I'm just trying to understand your personal basis for accepting the older copy, and how it was settled in your mind that it's more trustworthy, disregarding the Latin Vulgate and such.

MM

 

[Indentured Servant]

I see. Hmm. So, what about the Septuagint, which dates back to about the fourth to fifth century BC? You see, I try to be very careful when appealing to antiquity, and thereby assuming that the oldest is always the best copy of the original. I'm just trying to understand your personal basis for accepting the older copy, and how it was settled in your mind that it's more trustworthy, disregarding the Latin Vulgate and such.

MM

I personally use the Septuagint. It is useful to compare with the content of other older manuscripts. When the two agree, in content, I use them to compare with the Masoretic text.

Using the Septuagint, I understand that Greek cannot accurately depict the meaning of Hebrew words, nor can English. Both are subject to bias, mostly when English is involved because there is a greater pool of influence from the variety of English translations.

I translate the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew words, which are confirmed first by the agreement of content.

By content, I am referring to something that appears in both the Septuagint and older texts that doesn't appear in post-Masoretic translations.

Are you familiar with an OT prophecy that Jesus quoted about Himself? He quoted from an ancient text, but the quote was not consistent with any Masoretic translation. The MT left out that he would give sight to the blind. The LXX and all other ancient texts contain the full prophecy that Jesus quoted.

I have found other such conflicting comparisons, one of which reflects more than 600 years missing in Shem's genealogy. Just this one discrepancy led to many rabbis to believe, and teach, that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person because it allowed for Shem to still be alive during Abraham's life. The removal of YHWH as the real identity of Melchizedek made this seem more likely. Some still teach this.

This, and other prophecies about how to recognize the messiah are the primary missing links to understanding the identity of Jesus as Savior. Not many researchers see this as coincidental,myself included.

 

[bobinfaith]

I personally use the Septuagint. It is useful to compare with the content of other older manuscripts. When the two agree, in content, I use them to compare with the Masoretic text.

Using the Septuagint, I understand that Greek cannot accurately depict the meaning of Hebrew words, nor can English. Both are subject to bias, mostly when English is involved because there is a greater pool of influence from the variety of English translations.

I translate the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew words, which are confirmed first by the agreement of content.

By content, I am referring to something that appears in both the Septuagint and older texts that doesn't appear in post-Masoretic translations.

Are you familiar with an OT prophecy that Jesus quoted about Himself? He quoted from an ancient text, but the quote was not consistent with any Masoretic translation. The MT left out that he would give sight to the blind. The LXX and all other ancient texts contain the full prophecy that Jesus quoted.

I have found other such conflicting comparisons, one of which reflects more than 600 years missing in Shem's genealogy. Just this one discrepancy led to many rabbis to believe, and teach, that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person because it allowed for Shem to still be alive during Abraham's life. The removal of YHWH as the real identity of Melchizedek made this seem more likely. Some still teach this.

This, and other prophecies about how to recognize the messiah are the primary missing links to understanding the identity of Jesus as Savior. Not many researchers see this as coincidental,myself included.

Hello Indentured Servant;

It blesses us to know you enjoy studying the Septuagint, referencing the Masoretic texts and your findings. Perhaps you can start an additional thread on this subject for learning but also fellowship.

I get questioned, why the Septuagint? The Gospel was reaching more Gentiles in the New Testament.

God bless you and thank you for sharing.

 

[Indentured Servant]

Hello Indentured Servant;

It blesses us to know you enjoy studying the Septuagint, referencing the Masoretic texts and your findings. Perhaps you can start an additional thread on this subject for learning but also fellowship.

I get questioned, why the Septuagint? The Gospel was reaching more Gentiles in the New Testament.

God bless you and thank you for sharing.

I thank you for your comments and thoughts. I may take a more prudent path and only involve myself with existing threads; however, if I create a thread, I will likely focus on finding out what others think about certain passages of Scripture. I enjoy allowing others express themselves in sharing the deep things of Spirit and Truth.


About the question asked, "Why the Septuagint?"
...Tradition has it that there were so many Jews in Greece for so long that they no longer understood the Hebrew text of scripture. It was translated for them to maintain access to the Word of God as they knew it.

A handful of researchers contend that, if it weren't for the LXX and DSS, we would never really know the complete meaning of scripture. So much was suddenly lost with the publication of the masoretic text, and now, a millennium later, most of us are ignorant, or unconcerned with what was lost.

 

[Indentured Servant]

I personally use the Septuagint. It is useful to compare with the content of other older manuscripts. When the two agree, in content, I use them to compare with the Masoretic text.

Using the Septuagint, I understand that Greek cannot accurately depict the meaning of Hebrew words, nor can English. Both are subject to bias, mostly when English is involved because there is a greater pool of influence from the variety of English translations.

I translate the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew words, which are confirmed first by the agreement of content.

By content, I am referring to something that appears in both the Septuagint and older texts that doesn't appear in post-Masoretic translations.

Are you familiar with an OT prophecy that Jesus quoted about Himself? He quoted from an ancient text, but the quote was not consistent with any Masoretic translation. The MT left out that he would give sight to the blind. The LXX and all other ancient texts contain the full prophecy that Jesus quoted.

I have found other such conflicting comparisons, one of which reflects more than 600 years missing in Shem's genealogy. Just this one discrepancy led to many rabbis to believe, and teach, that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person because it allowed for Shem to still be alive during Abraham's life. The removal of YHWH as the real identity of Melchizedek made this seem more likely. Some still teach this.

This, and other prophecies about how to recognize the messiah are the primary missing links to understanding the identity of Jesus as Savior. Not many researchers see this as coincidental,myself included.

Oh, my apologies, the prophecy that mentioned is found in Isaiah 61:1. I believe Jesus quoted it in John's account of the Good News.

 

[Origen]

So, what about the Septuagint, which dates back to about the fourth to fifth century BC?

Please forgive me but I need a bit of clarification

Is it your claim the LXX dates back to the 5th or 4th century B.C.?

According to the legend, it was during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284 to 246 B.C.) that the LXX was translated in Egypt. That would be 3rd century B.C.

 

[Musicmaster]

Please forgive me but I need a bit of clarification

Is it your claim the LXX dates back to the 5th or 4th century B.C.?

According to the legend, it was during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284 to 246 B.C.) that the LXX was translated in Egypt. That would be 3rd century B.C.

Yes, I was going by memory. As much as I like history, the dates always elude me at times. I always had issues with remembering dates.

Thank you.

MM