Since the other thread was archived by Neo-Nazi haters, I thought I’d respond to and finish up some cope here:
“>Great Isaiah Scroll from the DSS LOL man your pilpul is strong. You a leader over there ?
OK Show me Isiah 48:16 from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'll wait.. lmao
Jesus speaking
There I was (1) (Son) and now Master Yahweh (2) (Father) and his spirit (3) (Holy Spirit) have sent me (1) (Son)”
--> Because you want to bolster the LXX as massively superior, I'm saying that the Great Isaiah Scroll shows the LXX version to be an unreliable translation over all.
This is the Great Isaiah Scroll:
“Come near to me and hear this:
“From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, with his Spirit.” - dssenglishbible.com/isaiah 48.htm
This is the LXX from an interlinear with the right order of the words:
Isa 48:16 Lead forwardG4317 toG4314 me,G1473 andG2532 hearG191 these things!G3778 [2notG3756 4fromG575 5 the beginningG746 6inG1722 7secretG2931 1I have 3spoken].G2980 WhenG2259 it took place,G1096 [2thereG1563 1I was].G1510.7.1 AndG2532 nowG3568 the Lord,G2962 the LORD,G2962 he sentG649 meG1473 andG2532 G3588 his spirit.G4151 G1473
The reason it says two Lord's in the Greek is because it's translating the Hebrew words "the Lord God"/"my Lord (Adoni) YHWH" into the Greek equivalent of "the Lord, the Lord." The current copies of the LXX translate the Tetragrammaton to Lord. So if you have a text where it says "my Lord YHWH," it'll often just translate it to the Lord the Lord. I work with these texts everyday. You're totally out of your league. You're totally incompetent and inept to deal with these issues. Sit down.
Isaiah 48:16 King James Version 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Joshua Ward
Okaaay...???
Nathan Ramirez
Greek Septuagint is older than the masoretic text which was compiled and edited a century or so after Jesus to claim he isnt the Messiah and based on this alone already is more reliable. Greek septuagint puts the flood at 3,3k BC, this coincides with cultures around the world jumping into the bronze age simultaniously as if rebuilding from a catastrophe, while reporting of a flood destroying the world, as well as fitting the appearence of indo europeans in the caucasus where the ark landed traditionally. Babel would be 2,8k BC whichs collapse coincides with indo european migration. IIRC the apostles and Jesus too quoted scripture more similar to the greek septuagint than the masoretic texts. It translating YHWH as Lord does not negate this, especially since most modern translations render YHWH as either LORD or GOD
David James
All I have on Christianity, the teachings, morals, philosophy, law, history, origin etc.
History Christianity being in opposition to jewry: Pagan gods being the angels Historical Evidence for Jesus How Christianity transformed the wold Correcting claims on common misrepresented parts of the history: Sodom and Gomorrah Definitions: "Dinosaurs", Behemoths and Nephilim Teachings, Doctrines and Guidelines Law: Philsophy: Pauls work OT and NT belonging together: The destruction of the Temple Logical argument for the christian God Different teachings within Genesis: Satanism: Sun as symbol for God Purpose behind good and evil Metaphysics: Afterlife and Judgementday: Why Jesus is needed: Role of the chosen people Ethnicities Trivia
>It translating YHWH as Lord does not negate this, especially since most modern translations render YHWH as either LORD or GOD
He's claiming that the two Lords in the LXX reading are actually two Lords when in reality it is translating Lord YHWH to Lord Lord.
Henry Ortiz
ah ok, thats doesnt hold up at all. however you do find such a notion in Psalm 110 >1The LORD said to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”a
LORD being YHWH and "my lord" being Christ >41While the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus questioned them: 42“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?” >“David’s,” they answered. >43Jesus said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord’? For he says: >44‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’g >45So if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how can He be David’s son?” >46No one was able to answer a word, and from that day on no one dared to question Him any further.
Benjamin Cox
>Greek Septuagint is older than the masoretic text which was compiled and edited a century or so after Jesus to claim he isnt the Messiah and based on this alone already is more reliable. >Greek septuagint puts the flood at 3,3k BC, this coincides with cultures around the world jumping into the bronze age simultaniously as if rebuilding from a catastrophe, while reporting of a flood destroying the world, as well as fitting the appearence of indo europeans in the caucasus where the ark landed traditionally. Babel would be 2,8k BC whichs collapse coincides with indo european migration.
Well, we don't have the original LXX and we can show how the current one is massively flawed.
As for the much older chronology of the LXX vs the shorter one of the MT. Well, the original biblical text is actually not either. The most accurate chronology we have is based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, though it itself is not perfect either but is the most accurate, but sometimes the MT or LXX are superior or none and we have to figure out the original number for a given person's age in the genealogies, but most of the time the Samaritan is the most accurate. We can figure all out by comparing the MT, SP, and LXX side by side as regards the genealogies. You can find a chart of this on Wikipedia to make it easy. I won't get into the details here but I've went over this with friends before and it's clear neither the LXX or the MT are right. The SP is the best but also has flaws and we need all versions to correct those flaws but it's relatively easy when you apply critical thinking. It's clear the LXX was changed to line up with the other cultures so as not to look bad. All the textual differences in the data with the numbers can only be explained when we take a slightly modified Samaritan Pentateuch chronology as the original chronology.
Grayson Wood
>There I was (1) (Son) >and now Master Yahweh (2) (Father) >and his spirit (3) (Holy Spirit) Thats called babylonian paganistic trinity worship user.
There's nothing in Psalm 110 that indicate "my lord" there is God.
You can interpret that as the singers of the Levites singing about their lord the king of the time, David and God's dealings with him.
The Hebrew word translated as ‘priest’ can refer to a simple administration of government (2Samuel 8:18) which is what Melchizedek was, since he was a king.
There are a wide array of nuances for the Hebrew word translated as ‘order.’ Like the word can refer to ‘cause,’ ‘manner,’ ‘reason,’ ‘order,’ ‘estate,’ ‘end,’ and ‘regard’. So it doesn’t even necessarily have to refer to some separate official priestly order.
Phrases you're taking literally aren’t meant to be according to the way David uses them elsewhere in his Psalms, like the “Yahweh at my right hand” and “being at Yahweh’s right hand” language (see Psalm 16:8, 11; and there's no reason to think this is about Jesus from context either).
It literally says that Yahweh fulfilled his word to David to put his enemies under his feet like a footstool just as Psa. 110:1 says (compare with 2Samuel 22:1, 39; 1Kings 5:3). Psalm 110 was clearly a promise of Yahweh to David that was fulfilled in David's lifetime.
I don't know how you'd reconcile that with your quote of Yeshua there. The best I've been able to come up with is Jesus was just trying to trip up the Pharisees and show how ignorant they were about the Bible and their mystical Messianic interpretations of passages like Psalm110. I'm not sure how convincing that is though because the problem is the dominant view of Psalm 110 even back then seems to be that it was about David in the way I already showed based on the Targums:
“Composed by David, a psalm. The Lord said in his decree to make me lord of all Israel, but he said to me, “Wait still for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to die, for one reign must not encroach on another;[5] and afterwards I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.” Another Targum: The Lord spoke by his decree to give me the dominion in exchange for sitting in study of Torah. “Wait at my right hand until I make your enemies a prop for your feet.” Another Targum: The Lord said in his decree to appoint me ruler over Israel, but the Lord said to me, “Wait for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to pass away from the world; and afterwards you will inherit the kingship, and I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.”” - targum.info/pss/ps5.htm
But maybe Jesus was talking to some highly mystical Pharisees who held to a minority Messianic interpretation of the passage. There is a ton of diversity of interpretation especially non-essential/Halachic issues in Judaism after all.
Samuel Reed
W-w-wut? You have no arguments? Yeah, I know.
Wyatt Johnson
/his/ /lit/ /x/ or most fittingly /cgl/ for religious discussions. Not politics.
Justin Powell
Fair enough. But this is a continuation of a discussion that was on here. I wanted to try to ensure the same people from there saw this.
Nolan Lopez
Psalms are written by David. 110 states that YHWH speaks to Davids Lord at YHWHs right hand. Jesus repeatedly says that is where he is going, to sit at the fathers right hand.
110 further says that this lord of David is high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Its fairly evident that this is about the Messiah, you also see this argued by Paul in Hebrews
Logan Anderson
all you have on jewish fairy tales
Landon Cox
Yeah, but the Psalms were written to sung in worship. Also, the term "a psalm of David" can be translated to "a psalm to David" or "a psalm about David." Authors can right about themselves you know. All the context shows that is about David. That's a much more rationally contextually based interpretation than some mystical messianic one.
And again, in the previous thread, I postulated a hypothesis that most if not all of the Messianic fulfillment texts quoted in the NT could merely be Midrashic parallelisms and not actual fulfilled prophecies.
Anthony Ramirez
>110 further says that this lord of David is high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Its fairly evident that this is about the Messiah, you also see this argued by Paul in Hebrews
It doesn't say the word 'high' in the passage, and I addressed the words 'priest. and 'order.'
Jordan Stewart
fuck, I hoped you were dead
Owen Robinson
We see a very obvious example of Midrashic parallelism in James 2:23:
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."
If we go back to the original text this is not a prophecy that Abraham had to fulfill. It was something that had already happened. But Abraham's later continued faithfulness compared with his past faithfulness and thus paralleled the past event and statement. Something that happened back then was in a similar parallel way repeating itself which caused James to think back to the previous event and see a parallel. It wasn't a literal fulfilled prophecy.
Jack Cooper
What if some people are invincibly retarded? Has that thought ever crossed your mind? Hmmm?
Hunter Cooper
based christian germ all jewish lies will falter soon the truth always wins in the end
