No, any actual "torah scroll," faithfully copied, will disprove that claim. The Masorites "parsed" the original (which had no spaces between words) and added vowel pointers.All we have is the Masoretic text...
Very true.Personally I think people...think the Masoretic text is the original when it is not.
This one's easy. Example: the word "Torah" in Hebrew can be spelled 'tav-resh-hey' (like "T-R-H" - notice, no vowels) OR, sometimes, it's found rendered as "tav-vav-resh-hey," [T-O-R-H] where that extra letter is inserted, and vowel-pointed as the "o" sound.Of course, if there were ELS references that appeared in the DSS but had disappeared in the Masoretic text, that would be evidence of edits... I wonder if anyone has done that study? I suspect the DSS may be too fragmentary for it though.
Any "addition to" is arguably controversial, including vowel pointers. I've already mentioned (and had this discussion with Nehemiah Gordon) that I personally consider it possible, if not likely, that some of the intent may have been deliberately to hide the "ineffable Name" pronunciation, YHVH. It would hardly be the first time we've seen 'religiousity' used to modify His Word to fit an agenda. (Get a Catholic version of the 'Ten Commandments' for an easy check.)So what did you mean when you said the Masoretic text was "controversial" @Mark C? Were you solely referring to the vowel pointers being controversial, and believe that the consonant text is 100% accurate?
In the case of differences between the Masoretic text and the DSS, which would be more authoritative in your opinion and why?
the AKJV, or the Not-Inspired Version.
No on claimed there was an original Septuagint. The claim is that it is the oldest and best attested translation we have. Every time it could be verified or has proven accurate.No sale.
PS> And show me an original of the Septuagint, too!
Idiocy. PROVE IT!!!! I'm sick of you ignoring actual evidence, from ELS, to internal consistency, to historic record, and just repeating an asinine claim that a translation of something else is the 'oldest and best' - when simple logic says that's simply asinine. You didn't even have the integrity to try to refute specific answers to questions you asked, then ignored.No on claimed there was an original Septuagint. The claim is that it is the oldest and best attested translation we have. Every time it could be verified or has proven accurate.
Pure Bullshit. You know, or should, that Greek was not the language Moses wrote in.Meanwhile Hebrew versions are all either based on the Septuagint or have no history behind them.
...says the guy who ignores evidence, and makes unsupported claims, sans expertise. What do you bring to the table?I know this insults some people with pretensions to being experts...
Yikes. Apparently I tread on a nerve there. You’re projecting a fair amount here though. You haven’t offered any proof of your claims. You keep repeating an acronym like a mantra. I’m not sure what ELS is or why it is a stand in for Hebrew manuscripts but my question was simple.Idiocy. PROVE IT!!!! I'm sick of you ignoring actual evidence, from ELS, to internal consistency, to historic record, and just repeating an asinine claim that a translation of something else is the 'oldest and best' - when simple logic says that's simply asinine. You didn't even have the integrity to try to refute specific answers to questions you asked, then ignored.
Accurate to WHAT? The Original? This is called circular.
We know it was translated (by 72 rabbis, goes the story - hopefully you've heard it...)
from what? Do you even know what the word 'septuagint' means????
Pure Bullshit. You know, or should, that Greek was not the language Moses wrote in.
And do really think readers here are ignorant enough to swallow a claim like "all" concerning 'Hebrew versions' without any evidence, either?
You ignore evidence and keep repeating your mantra. Have at it. I have yet to see you back up an assertion on this topic with actual facts.
Finally:
...says the guy who ignores evidence, and makes unsupported claims, sans expertise. What do you bring to the table?
Gimme a semi-expert over a narcissist 'moderator' any day.
As I explained, Samuel, there is midrash, even argument. But just making unsupported statements as if they were fact is neither, and the spiral had already tightened, as I know you can see for yourself.Cool it @Mark C, I know you and @The Revolting Man rub each other the wrong way but this doesn't need to be addressed with words like "Idiocy" and "Bullshit". Let's not have this spiral downhill.
@The Revolting Man is correct that the LXX is older than the Masoretic text, because manuscripts of the LXX that are much, much older than the Masoretic manuscripts are available. There are fragments even older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
No, I read it and included it. And I had a term for it...Of course, his claim that some of the existing Hebrew versions are based on the LXX is questionable, but he worded this very carefully, he did not claim that all Hebrew versions were based on the LXX - you appear to have misread what he wrote.
Then perhaps he should try SUPPORTING his claims with evidence, if there are "reasons'.His actual claim was less extreme and he may have reasons for it.
Holy crap, that didn’t take long. ELS is laughably stupid. It stands for Equidistant Letter Sequences. It takes letters out of the text at randomly chosen intervals and uses them to form new words in modern languages.Idiocy. PROVE IT!!!! I'm sick of you ignoring actual evidence, from ELS, to internal consistency, to historic record, and just repeating an asinine claim that a translation of something else is the 'oldest and best' - when simple logic says that's simply asinine. You didn't even have the integrity to try to refute specific answers to questions you asked, then ignored.
Accurate to WHAT? The Original? This is called circular.
We know it was translated (by 72 rabbis, goes the story - hopefully you've heard it...)
from what? Do you even know what the word 'septuagint' means????
Pure Bullshit. You know, or should, that Greek was not the language Moses wrote in.
And do really think readers here are ignorant enough to swallow a claim like "all" concerning 'Hebrew versions' without any evidence, either?
You ignore evidence and keep repeating your mantra. Have at it. I have yet to see you back up an assertion on this topic with actual facts.
Finally:
...says the guy who ignores evidence, and makes unsupported claims, sans expertise. What do you bring to the table?
Gimme a semi-expert over a narcissist 'moderator' any day.
And it keeps getting better. ELS is dependent on the Hebrew version of Genesis. You’re trying to use it to validate the idea of the existence of some ancient Hebrew version of the Torah.As I explained, Samuel, there is midrash, even argument. But just making unsupported statements as if they were fact is neither, and the spiral had already tightened, as I know you can see for yourself.
Not relevant to the issue, since it was stipulated, and I just included the dates, directly above.
There are NO extant copies of EITHER the LXX or the pre-Yahushua torah scrolls, or any other Books, for that matter. So the question, which I have addressed, but saw ignored, was how accurate the COPIES of ANY of those texts are, and from WHAT.
No, I read it and included it. And I had a term for it...
Then perhaps he should try SUPPORTING his claims with evidence, if there are "reasons'.
I'm happy to have midrash, Samuel, with just about anyone. But you are correct. I have again seen proof that interaction with people who ignore evidence is like putting "lipstick on a pig."
Are you for real Mark? Is this a troll? Surely you can’t be serious with this garbage.As I explained, Samuel, there is midrash, even argument. But just making unsupported statements as if they were fact is neither, and the spiral had already tightened, as I know you can see for yourself.
Not relevant to the issue, since it was stipulated, and I just included the dates, directly above.
There are NO extant copies of EITHER the LXX or the pre-Yahushua torah scrolls, or any other Books, for that matter. So the question, which I have addressed, but saw ignored, was how accurate the COPIES of ANY of those texts are, and from WHAT.
No, I read it and included it. And I had a term for it...
Then perhaps he should try SUPPORTING his claims with evidence, if there are "reasons'.
I'm happy to have midrash, Samuel, with just about anyone. But you are correct. I have again seen proof that interaction with people who ignore evidence is like putting "lipstick on a pig."
Alright Mark; I’m calling it. You have stumbled into major heresy. IF ELS is real then Christianity is a lie.As I explained, Samuel, there is midrash, even argument. But just making unsupported statements as if they were fact is neither, and the spiral had already tightened, as I know you can see for yourself.
Not relevant to the issue, since it was stipulated, and I just included the dates, directly above.
There are NO extant copies of EITHER the LXX or the pre-Yahushua torah scrolls, or any other Books, for that matter. So the question, which I have addressed, but saw ignored, was how accurate the COPIES of ANY of those texts are, and from WHAT.
No, I read it and included it. And I had a term for it...
Then perhaps he should try SUPPORTING his claims with evidence, if there are "reasons'.
I'm happy to have midrash, Samuel, with just about anyone. But you are correct. I have again seen proof that interaction with people who ignore evidence is like putting "lipstick on a pig."
The most interesting statement in that article isAre you for real Mark? Is this a troll? Surely you can’t be serious with this garbage.
Bible code - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
This directly contradicts @Mark C's statements that the ELS indicates the consonants in the Masoretic text have not been changed - if they differ between versions then at least some versions have been changed.The precise order of consonantal letters represented in the Hebrew Masoretic Text is not consistent across manuscripts in any period. It is known from earlier versions, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the number of letters was not constant even in the first centuries CE. The Bible code theory thus does not seem to account for these variations.
I’m trying to not launch into Zec style histrionics here but nothing he implied about ELS was accurate and I couldn’t even find anyone making the claims about that he did.The most interesting statement in that article is
This directly contradicts @Mark C's statements that the ELS indicates the consonants in the Masoretic text have not been changed - if they differ between versions then at least some versions have been changed.