Meat How can we believe in "Magic" - but not Scripture?

[Mark C]

And not to forget Joseph who claims to take part in “divination” Of sorts

”And Yosĕph said to them, “What deed is this you have done? Did you not know that a man like me indeed divines?”“
‭‭Berĕshith (Genesis)‬ ‭44‬:‭15‬ ‭TS2009‬‬

Berĕshith (Genesis) 44:15 And Yosĕph said to them, “What deed is this you have done? Did you not know that a man like me indeed divines?” | The Scriptures 2009 (TS2009) | Download The Bible App Now

And Yosĕph said to them, “What deed is this you have done? Did you not know that a man like me indeed divines?”

bible.com

Good point.

Would you mind explaining this message for those of us attending to understand this very educated conversation

I'd be happy to, but it would help if you can be more specific about which parts. (That is why I included the longer midrash; yes, those who don't like it won't listen anyway, but others - I hope - will find the audio easier to follow than a 'Cliff's Notes' summary.)

The gist, though, had to do with "well, just exactly what IS 'magic'?" Pharoah's 'magicians' could replicate SOME of what Moshe and Aaron initially did (up until about the third plague, then...oops..."THIS is the finger of Elohim...")

Likewise, much of what I got paid to do for living would not only look like magic, but can't even be SEEN without sophisticated instruments, some of which I can no longer even afford to have on hand.

So why do we 'discount' what He says about 'plagues' that we haven't seen on Planet Earth for many centuries? But could it, at some point, matter again?

 

[Bartato]

The “Old Testament” quotes that Yahushua and the Apostles referenced almost always match the Septuagint. But if you check the Masoretic Text - at times - it’s very different.

I don’t think when the Apostles were around that the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint were different. I think the Masoretic Text - which is what most modern English translations are based on - became a slightly altered text - sometime after the destruction of the temple in the 1st century. I also believe both of the Two Houses of Israel have stuff hidden from us. The Vatican (northern kingdom) and the Talmudic Jews (southern kingdom). Can’t prove it, however.

You raise a good point that when the NT quotes the OT, it often lines up more accurately with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text. I always assumed that just had to do with the Greek to Greek rather than Hebrew to Greek nature of the quote. Like you suggest it may have to do with the Masoretic text being slightly altered by later Rabbis who rejected the Messiah.

 

[Mark C]

You raise a good point that when the NT quotes the OT, it often lines up more accurately with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text. I always assumed that just had to do with the Greek to Greek rather than Hebrew to Greek nature of the quote. Like you suggest it may have to do with the Masoretic text being slightly altered by later Rabbis who rejected the Messiah.

And it could have to do with people who prefer the Greek preferring the Greek, and translators picking the reference.

Bear in mind the KJV team had an agenda, too. (Another topic for another thread...)

 

[Earth_is-]

And it could have to do with people who prefer the Greek preferring the Greek, and translators picking the reference.

Bear in mind the KJV team had an agenda, too. (Another topic for another thread...)

That is another possibility - the translators simply choosing the Greek Septuagint when it comes to translating the quoted “Old Testament” scripture.

 

[Bartato]

And it could have to do with people who prefer the Greek preferring the Greek, and translators picking the reference.

Bear in mind the KJV team had an agenda, too. (Another topic for another thread...)

Right, but when we are talking about the men who wrote the New Testament books, we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired those particular choices.

They may have been quoting the Septuagint, or other older Hebrew manuscripts, but don't seem to be quoting Hebrew manuscripts that line up as well with the Masoretic.

 

[FollowingHim]

That is another possibility - the translators simply choosing the Greek Septuagint when it comes to translating the quoted “Old Testament” scripture.

Bear in mind the KJV team had an agenda, too. (Another topic for another thread...)

No, this has nothing to do with English translators. @Bartato is talking about the choices that the New Testament writers made - Luke, Paul etc - when writing down Old Testament scriptures in their original Greek letters. They uniformly used the Septuagint for their scriptural quotes. It's got nothing to do with the KJV either. This is a red herring.

And it could have to do with people who prefer the Greek preferring the Greek

That is relevant though - the simplest explanation is just that anybody writing in Greek just used the existing Greek Scriptures - the Septuagint - for their quotes. As you would. However, this is itself a stamp of approval. Paul for one was a highly educated Jewish scholar. If the LXX were wrong, and the Hebrew said something different, he would know that and would have used his own Greek translation of the Hebrew which he was likely at least as familiar with. For the New Testament writers to choose the LXX is a stamp of approval, and means one of two things. Either:

1) There was no fundamental difference in meaning between the Hebrew and Greek at the time of Jesus. The authoritative Hebrew versions in common use meant the same as the LXX. The LXX was used because it accurately represented the Hebrew, there was no such dispute at all. All substantial variations were introduced later by the Masorites.

2) There were different versions floating around at the time, and the New Testament writers used the version they believed was correct - the LXX.

Either way, the use of the LXX in the New Testament is a strong stamp of approval.

 

[FollowingHim]

Moses did not write in that form of Hebrew. Any codes inserted into it would have been jumbled beyond recognition as the text was translated into newer forms of Hebrew, some of which are not even intelligible to those fluent in other forms of Hebrew.

You misunderstand the difference between paleo-Hebrew and later Hebrew. The difference is only in the characters it was written in. The actual spelling remained the same. They just changed the font.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You misunderstand the difference between paleo-Hebrew and later Hebrew. The difference is only in the characters it was written in. The actual spelling remained the same. They just changed the font.

There are more variations in Hebrew than that.

 

[Earth_is-]

Paul was accused of being part of a sect called the Natzarim (after coming to faith in Yahushua):

Acts 24:5 NLT
We have found this man to be a troublemaker who is constantly stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the cult known as the Nazarenes.

That word is used by the prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 6:17 NLT
I posted watchmen over you who said, ‘Listen for the sound of the alarm.’ But you replied, ‘No! We won’t pay attention!’

The Hebrew word for “watchmen” is:


Revelation 22:14 KJV
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Proverbs 7:2 NLT
Obey my commands and live! Guard my instructions as you guard your own eyes.

This is just one small example how the Hebrew is by far and large superior. There’s many more examples - for example:

Psalm 91:16
I will reward them with a long life and give them my Salvation.

The Hebrew word for “salvation:”



But compare that with the Septuagint (psalm 91:16) for the word “salvation:”

 

[FollowingHim]

There are more variations in Hebrew than that.

Yes, certainly, between the different versions of the text (e.g. DSS and Masoretic) there are differences of wording. And the Masoretic vowel pointing is another major change. But in terms of the change from the old to new script, it's essentially just a change in font.

 

[FollowingHim]

Paul was accused of being part of a sect called the Natzarim (after coming to faith in Yahushua):

Acts 24:5 NLT
We have found this man to be a troublemaker who is constantly stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the cult known as the Nazarenes.

That word is used by the prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 6:17 NLT
I posted watchmen over you who said, ‘Listen for the sound of the alarm.’ But you replied, ‘No! We won’t pay attention!’

The Hebrew word for “watchmen” is:

View attachment 7011
Revelation 22:14 KJV
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Proverbs 7:2 NLT
Obey my commands and live! Guard my instructions as you guard your own eyes.

This is just one small example how the Hebrew is by far and large superior. There’s many more examples - for example:

Psalm 91:16
I will reward them with a long life and give them my Salvation.

The Hebrew word for “salvation:”

View attachment 7012

But compare that with the Septuagint (psalm 91:16) for the word “salvation:”

View attachment 7014

What is your point @Earth_is-? I think you're having a different debate to everyone else. I can't see anyone in this discussion fundamentally disagreeing with anything you've just posted, it's all both true and irrelevant.

 

[frederick]

Either way, the use of the LXX in the New Testament is a strong stamp of approval.

Agreed, and I'd go so far as to say it is the Holy Spirit's stamp of approval for the use of and reliability of that translation. Not all translations are bad.

 

[Mark C]

Either way, the use of the LXX in the New Testament is a strong stamp of approval.

Yes, you make a good point. But I can't help but note that the 'objection' made to the original Hebrew is just as apropos here, and I suggest, actually more viable:

How do you KNOW? We do NOT have the 'original letters' (Unless, again they're hidden in the Vatican library basement.) And we can not PROVE what language Paul memorized the Torah, and certainly others, in. But it is clear that he was a 'Hebrew thinker' from his consistent use of examples and expressions that originate in that language. (Much like, as an American, if I say, "wow, he really hit that one outta the ballpark," it marks a specifically American English thought pattern.)

NONE of us can 'prove' it (therein lies the rub) but I contend that it is entirely possible, if not likely, that any number of reasons (like not having the original letter, only a copy, and they were known to have varied widely) that some copyist might have pulled a 'stock copy' of Paul's reference, admittedly almost certainly after 325 AD to have been, shall we say, LESS 'Hebrew-friendly', from the LXX.

Example (not a 'proof', certainly): I frequently quote Deuteronomy chapter 30, and Shaul/Paul's reference to it in Romans chapter 10. There is a level of 'sarcasm' in the first half of Deuteronomy 30 in the Hebrew that is obvious in the context of Paul's point that simply does not come across in many English translations. Why? What is correct? No, I don't believe it's merely a problem with "LXX or not" - but a question of whether the translator REALLY understood an irony that they chose to ignore, for doctrinal reasons that post-date 325 AD. And note that Paul quotes Joel 2, and whatever is left there removed the Name (YHVH) that was unquestionably in the original text, as Paul would've known, even if the 'custom' was to substitute "Hashem" when it was read aloud.

We have discussed the literal "anti-Jewish' flavor of 'The Church' after those events in the Fourth Century before. A point that I contend has been missed in this discussion, but that "LXX bias" - and indeed, Greek over Hebrew in general - was extant before the time of ANY of the 'source documents' noted in this thread, LXX or Masoretic - as was a literal ban, on pain of death ultimately, against "judaizing" (there's that word, decidedly NOT in the original letters for obvious reasons) - from keeping His True (and never changed) Sabbath, to His moedim, etc.

Would a 'Church' that killed people for keeping the Appointed Times of YHVH have been above preferring one "original text" over another, especially if it suggested the fallacy?

Put a bit differently, some here acknowledge (or at least CLAIM) the 'animosity' of the Masoretic text to a Messiah that they believe (arguably, in many cases with good reason - this was POST-MARCION, too!) could not have been their TRUE Messiah if he "did away with the law". Paul had already warned of such before 70 AD in places like, but not limited to, II Corinthians 11. Likewise, the 'Church' by then had declared any so-called 'judaizing' to be "anathema."

I ask those so convinced that the Masorites would've subverted the text to be 'anti-jesus' - why not at least admit the possibility of a Universal and Catholic 'Church' that would have returned the favor, to push one who 'did away with' their beloved 'law'?


PS> It's EASY to show how the not-so-great King James pulled a similar stunt with the beloved Geneva Bible, to just "tweak" certain verses (you know 'em) to push the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" - and get rid of those pesky 'margin notes' that explained things he didn't like, while they were at it.

 

[Earth_is-]

What is your point @Earth_is-? I think you're having a different debate to everyone else. I can't see anyone in this discussion fundamentally disagreeing with anything you've just posted, it's all both true and irrelevant.

No matter how well a translation is - it can still lose certain things from the original Hebrew.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Mark C, you're speculating.

NONE of us can 'prove' it (therein lies the rub) but I contend that it is entirely possible, if not likely, that any number of reasons...

Let's stick with what we know. We know Paul was a top Jewish scholar, and therefore almost certainly a scholar of Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset - a "Hebrew thinker" as you have pointed out. And all the texts we have include not only him, but every other New Testament author, citing extensively from the LXX.

We could speculate that maybe, just maybe, there was a conspiracy among the many scribes who transcribed this in multiple locations and all of them switched every single reference in every single copy of every New Testament book, but it's a bit of a stretch. And if we're going to suggest that we may as well just start inventing anything. I mean, maybe Genesis originally said God took seven billion years to make everything and a scribe changed it to days to sound more dramatic. We can make up whatever we like if we don't need evidence.

All the actual evidence we have is that the New Testament writers supported the use of the LXX. And the fact that Paul was a "Hebrew thinker" only reinforces this, because even he, likely knowing the scriptures well in both languages, approved the LXX as an accurate rendering of the meaning into Greek.

 

[Mark C]

Let's stick with what we know.

So far, so good. Agreed.

We know Paul was a top Jewish scholar, and therefore almost certainly a scholar of Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset - a "Hebrew thinker" as you have pointed out.

Again, so far, still so good.

And all the texts we have include not only him, but every other New Testament author, citing extensively from the LXX.

Full stop. We do NOT know whether any of those (I would question particularly Shaul/Paul, Yochanan/John, Kefa/Peter, for starters) actually quoted from their (now no longer extant) Torah scrolls and "TNKH," what Yahushua also called the 'torah and prophets,' in Hebrew or not!

Ponder this:

IF they quoted from a pre-Masoretic text, perhaps the same or copies of texts TRANSLATED by The Famous 72 a few centuries earlier, and those letters were later copied and re-copied and re-copied into Greek - wouldn't you argue at least as persuasively that IN GREEK that original Hebrew would appear IDENTICAL to the oh-so-perfect translation of the LXX? Don't forget that NO 'original' copy of the Septuagint even survives from centuries AFTER those supposed quotations!

What we know is that huge variations exist in the many, many variants of 'new testament' texts (to the point where most English versions of the Bible spend at least a page or two on source information.) My NKJV 'Study Edition', for example, says, "Over 5000 Greek, 8000 Latin, and many other manuscripts in other languages," attest to the integrity of the writings. They go on to emphasize that "other manuscript differences...should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists" among these ancient records.

Many others have made what I consider a virtually iron-clad case that Revelation was Written by John in the language(s) he and his Brother spoke...Hebrew, and Aramaic. For just one easy example, "I AM the Alef Tav" has FAR more meaning, on multiple levels, in Hebrew than "the alpha and omega" ever could. (It ['et'] is a fundamental concept in Hebrew, which has no Greek equivalent.)

Likewise, Matthew was almost certainly written originally in Hebrew, and translated later. No original copies of EITHER version survive. But there are both Hebrew and Aramaic renderings that do, and the oldest (sometimes called "Shem Tov's Matthew) was the subject of an extensive study by a Dead Sea Scrolls translator I very much respect, Nehemiah Gordon. (And part of the topic of my related midrash on this past Sabbath, which I will link below here as well.)

And let me again re-emphasize this: I am NOT claiming that the LXX is "not an accurate translation". But I continue to contend that there are elements, and information content, that are simply impossible to translate, period, at least not without volumes of additional information:

All the actual evidence we have is that the New Testament writers supported the use of the LXX. And the fact that Paul was a "Hebrew thinker" only reinforces this, because even he, likely knowing the scriptures well in both languages, approved the LXX as an accurate rendering of the meaning into Greek.

I "approve" of the KJV as an "accurate rendering" of the meaning into English. That does NOT mean that I believe it to be error-free. (It is not.) It does not even mean that there are not important points that have been "lost in translation," and require additional supporting information to understand.

Another example: If I say some guy was "born on third-base and thinks he hit a home run," most American English speakers laugh. (Unless they've heard it a hundred times before.) Most Europeans, even many who speak English fluently, would have a puzzled look. (How about Down Under?) To explain something that took less than 50 characters to express would probably take a full page to not only TRANSLATE, but put in proper, baseball-literate, cultural context. And a merely 'accurate rendering' may, or may NOT, capture the real original intent.

Lastly, and leastly even, if you wrote a "Letter to the Romanians," wouldn't you write it in Romanian?

Here is the link I mentioned:

Parsha Acharei Mot into Kedoshim teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa | Come out of her, My people…

Mark Call – Parsha “Acharei Mot into Kedoshim teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa

Parsha “Acharei Mot” (Leviticus chapters 16 through 18) is the regular reading for this week, following the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But we did take a look at that week, Mark decided …

hebrewnationonline.com

 

[Mark C]

PS> How many people reading this have actually also read the 'preface' to their preferred English Bible translation?

Here's the last sentence of two pages of discussion about textual variances and criticism in my NKJV Version, "Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible":

Noting that differences in the text are voluminously footnoted (which is helpful and valuable) they conclude, "it is important to emphasize that [despite those described textual variants] fully 85% of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text."

I do have to wonder how many of those involved in these various studies and committees knew that YHVH now only allowed, but Wrote Instruction concerning how a man may have more than one wife?

Most of what people on BF tend to focus (correctly) on is arguably less than 15% of the Scriptural total, and perhaps far less than 1% of the many fewer references in the "Apostolic Writings." (aka Brit Chadasha, or Renewed Covenant, in Hebrew) Yet I notice we will argue about nuance in the meaning of Greek words like "mia," or "heatou" (oh, yeah - and don't forget 'exousia,' for those that like to twist Romans 13 into a pretzel!) -- ALL of which get mis-translated in most English Bibles.

At minimum, cut the Masorites some slack. They didn't do anything that hasn't been done a thousand times since.

 

[FollowingHim]

Full stop. We do NOT know whether any of those (I would question particularly Shaul/Paul, Yochanan/John, Kefa/Peter, for starters) actually quoted from their (now no longer extant) Torah scrolls and "TNKH," what Yahushua also called the 'torah and prophets,' in Hebrew or not!

Ponder this:

IF they quoted from a pre-Masoretic text, perhaps the same or copies of texts TRANSLATED by The Famous 72 a few centuries earlier, and those letters were later copied and re-copied and re-copied into Greek - wouldn't you argue at least as persuasively that IN GREEK that original Hebrew would appear IDENTICAL to the oh-so-perfect translation of the LXX?

Of course. If he was quoting from Hebrew, are we agreed that by using it Paul is confirming that that particular Hebrew original was correct?

If so, if the Masoretic text disagrees with the quote used by Paul, does that not mean that the Masoretic text is wrong, and the Hebrew original Paul used is actually correct?

Finally, if Paul's Hebrew text was correct, and it just so happens that the LXX is a translation of that very Hebrew text that Paul confirmed as correct, such an accurate translation that it is word-for-word identical to how Paul translated it, does that not tell us that the LXX is a translation of the correct Hebrew original?

If so, that would make the LXX a correct translation (to the degree that the meaning can be accurately portayed in Greek, I hear you that there will be nuances that are lost in translation), and the Masoretic text incorrect (insofar as it differs from the meaning of the Hebrew original that has been preserved in the LXX).

 

[Mark C]

Of course. If he was quoting from Hebrew, are we agreed that by using it Paul is confirming that that particular Hebrew original was correct?

My point, in part, was that an allegedly Greek text citing a Greek rendering does not constitute a 'proof' at all. We do not, and cannot know, with utter certainty what was cited in the original which we do not have, REGARDLESS of which language the letter was originally written.

All we know is that his thought processes, Master, and original texts were all Hebrew.

If so, if the Masoretic text disagrees with the quote used by Paul, does that not mean that the Masoretic text is wrong, and the Hebrew original Paul used is actually correct?

There are logically multiple possibilities, as I noted. And given the multitude of copies, not only in Greek, but Latin - several of those possibilities are likely correct. Bear in mind, there are those (and certainly were times) where those texts were literally enforced 'violently'.

Finally, if Paul's Hebrew text was correct, and it just so happens that the LXX is a translation of that very Hebrew text that Paul confirmed as correct, such an accurate translation that it is word-for-word identical to how Paul translated it, does that not tell us that the LXX is a translation of the correct Hebrew original?

That was my point, and it was never the issue here. (Except, arguably by those who just hate ANY rendering of the Bible.)

If so, that would make the LXX a correct translation (to the degree that the meaning can be accurately portayed in Greek, I hear you that there will be nuances that are lost in translation), and the Masoretic text incorrect (insofar as it differs from the meaning of the Hebrew original that has been preserved in the LXX).

By george, I think he's got it.

But it is still not a "proof", Samuel. All they are are indications that help us be like Bereeans, (who arguably had SOME text they trusted) search out the Truth for ourselves, and rightly divide the Word.

We may have less reliable texts than they had, but we do have more of 'em, and better tools to search things out.

Which is, again, why I find the concept of ELS fascinating, just like we can almost instantly now search things like "first use," and every instance of a word, or even a phrase. (Now, THAT would be an interesting comparative study...)