-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat How can we believe in "Magic" - but not Scripture?
- Thread starter Mark C
- Start date
-
- Tags
- magic metzora not leprosy tzaraat
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.
Very true.
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.
But guess what that does to the ELS? They are ALL now off by the additional letter!!!!!
There are many, MANY more examples of things that appear in "Torah scrolls" (like the "jots and tiddles") that just don't appear in English renderings at all. They don't translate. And "alef-tav" or 'et' is a word that has taken on mystic significance (since Yahushua IS 'the alef-tav,' He said) but has no English linguistic equivalent. (And, it also can effect the ELS, based on whether it is required in the grammar, or not, but is sometimes Present anyway...see Brad Scott on that.)
(This is a lengthy study - one I have learned most here won't listen to...
- but have done a number of times.)There are places in Scripture where we see things that to me, as an engineering with a background in coding theory, ECC, and other methods of ensuring "data integrity," literally "leap off the page." Look at Numbers chapter 7, the longest such in the Torah, and ask, "WHY the redundancy?" (This, too, I talk about every Torah cycle; there are several important reasons.) BUT, one of them just MIGHT be the 'data integrity' issue. What happens to ELS when huge sections are repeated word-for-word, and only certain parts (like names) differ?
So, "what original Hebrew texts are we talking about?" I submit that the answer is obvious: the capital-T 'Torah,' aka, the five Books of Moses. In other words, every "Torah Scroll" that purports to be a faithful copy (without spaces of vowel pointers!) of His original.
As to what 'scholars' say - even Wikipedia has an answer there, whether we trust it or not. And a search for, say, "oldest Torah scroll" will find many more. But the Masorites date from no earlier than about the 7th century. The oldest-known complete copy [of the Masoretic version], the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century. The Aleppo Codex, once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the 1947 Civil war in Palestine, dates from the 10th century.
Meanwhile, "the Talmud and Karaite manuscripts[8] state that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists; there were paid correctors of biblical books among the officers of the Temple (Talmud, tractate Ketubot 106a)...mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas,, in the statements of Philo (preamble to his "Analysis of the Political Constitution of the Jews"), and in Josephus."
The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated at ca 100 BCE, and the Masoretic text from about the 9th century.
Notes Britannica, "Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation." I have suggested that since, by then, the Name of YHVH was already being hidden, and the vowel pointers are STILL a 'big issue' - it is certainly possible (I believe, but cannot prove) that they were used to specifically HIDE the 'ineffable Name' from the masses.
Finally, we "know that we DON'T know" what's hidden in the basement of the Vatican library.
And note that the Hebrew texts MEMORIZED by Paul, and quoted by Yahushua, and likely well-known to His 'taught ones,' would have been written out in "paleo-Hebrew characters, which predate the modern Hebrew letters, as people I know like Nehemiah Gordon, who worked on the Dead Sea scroll translation, and also works like the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, are quick to point out.
The question has to do with accurate copying of the Hebrew Torah scrolls, primarily.
Examples:
"Some claim the earliest written version of the Torah date to the Babylonian exile, ca 539 BCE...only fragments of those survive."
"In 2013, a Torah scroll from the University of Bologna in Italy made international news as it was deemed to be the world’s oldest Torah — this is technically true as it is the oldest complete Torah scroll. Professor Mauro Perani announced that radiocarbon tests showed that the Torah scroll was about 800 years old, dating between 1155 and 1225."
"The oldest manuscript fragments of the final Masoretic Text, including vocalications and the masorah, date from around the 9th century.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text#cite_note-9 The oldest-known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century. The Aleppo Codex, once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the 1947 Civil war in Palestine, dates from the 10th century."
- Wikipedia
"The Damascus Pentateuch is the oldest, almost complete manuscript containing only the Torah of the Hebrew Bible." (about 1000 CE, but it INCLUDES 'masoretic annotation'.)
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?
In the case of differences between the Masoretic text and the DSS, which would be more authoritative in your opinion and why?
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.)
I have also done a number of teachings on 'Bereshiet,' the Hebrew name of the Book, Genesis, and "in the Beginning." I have seen, and understand, that there are at LEAST seven different ways to "parse" just the very first 'phrase' in the Torah....putting just the SPACES between words in different places...which not only 'make sense', but are each Fundamental Truth. ANY attempt at translation, or even putting in spaces or vowel pointers, breaks that, to select only one of the possible.
So, ultimately, I take the Masoretic text with at least a BIT of a grain of salt, albeit perhaps a bit less so than, say, the AKJV, or the Not-Inspired Version.
They are flawed attempts, even if for the most part well-intentioned.
Last edited:
So just to clarify all that for the rest of us; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is the oldest and most reliable that we have. There are no original Hebrew manuscripts floating around anywhere.
LOL!!!
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.
Meanwhile Hebrew versions are all either based on the Septuagint or have no history behind them. This is important. God made His word available in every language on purpose and deliberately broke its link to the Hebrew. He didn’t want the vast majority of His people dependent on a few scholars for access to scripture.
I know this insults some people with pretensions to being experts but it is very comforting to the rest of us. Honest, plain, simple, uneducated people can have access to God’s instructions with a basic literacy.
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.
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.
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. His actual claim was less extreme and he may have reasons for it.
This is an interesting topic that we could discuss calmly.
@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.
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. His actual claim was less extreme and he may have reasons for it.
This is an interesting topic that we could discuss calmly.
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.
Where are these ancient Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Septuagint? I am aware of the history surrounding the translation and also what the word means. It’s enough for me that Christ and the apostles quoted it and it’s the version the New Testament cites.
As far I’m concerned we’re done here. The Septuagint was an accurate translation and a deliberate bottle neck. The New Testament is accurate. If the New Testament quotes the Septuagint then the Septuagint is accurate.
Anything that disagrees with the Septuagint therefor is inaccurate and if it doesn’t disagree with the Septuagint then why bother going to it?
Is that circular? Yes. Circular reasoning is wholly appropriate when it comes to God. “I am that I am” may be the most circular statement in history.
You don’t have proof. You have wild speculation. If you have a translation of the Old Testament that isn’t based on the Septuagint then show it to us. Let us research it.
I’ll tell you what through. I’ll do your job for you. I’ll look up ELS and tell everyone what it is. I don’t claim to be a teacher (like you do) but I will present the information clearly and directly and succinctly and not allegedly in a three hour podcast (as you never do). You’re welcome. Stand by for truth bombs.
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."
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.
It is described as a secret Bible code and seems to be used mostly to make Nostradamus style “prophecies”. Nothing I’ve found so far shows it as any utility in textual criticism but I did only look for a few minutes so far. I’ll keep going though.
No wonder you didn’t want to explain this. Either you don’t understand it or you realized too late how stupid it is but you already had too much invested.
I can’t wait to find who this lunacy originated with. I’m sure it’s going to be some one VERY credible.
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."
That is the definition of circular reasoning. I’m going deeper though. I just found the originators of this fantasy.
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."
Bible code - Wikipedia
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 technique’s most rigorous application was to prophesy the lives of a series of Jewish rabbis, all of whom, as far as I can tell, denied Christ. You have either been deceived or are a deceiver. Either way you need to repent.
Okay, ELS is essentially Kabbalah. It originated with Christ denying Jews, a group I am deeply sympathetic to and respectful of but whose denial of Christ makes all of their spiritual claims untrustworthy, in order to strengthen Judaism.
It was co-opted by some of the usual suspects in the Messianic movement but it is a complete scam. It’s methodology is based on completely random choices that are simply randomly altered when they no longer produce the desired results.
I know I said that I was going to provide a succinct and clear explanation but the truth is that there is none.
Some guys in the 90s wrote a computer program that chose patterns to pick letters out of text, may or may not have rearranged those letters to be read backwards and then chose words for those letters to represent.
You could, and apparently others have, achieved the same results with any large block of text.
As I suspected; this was a giant waste of time and I didn’t even spend that much time on it.
@Mark C , you are an untrustworthy teacher. If you fell for this then you are too simple and uncritical to be attempting to teach others. I hesitate to think what it means if you didn’t fall for it.
It was co-opted by some of the usual suspects in the Messianic movement but it is a complete scam. It’s methodology is based on completely random choices that are simply randomly altered when they no longer produce the desired results.
I know I said that I was going to provide a succinct and clear explanation but the truth is that there is none.
Some guys in the 90s wrote a computer program that chose patterns to pick letters out of text, may or may not have rearranged those letters to be read backwards and then chose words for those letters to represent.
You could, and apparently others have, achieved the same results with any large block of text.
As I suspected; this was a giant waste of time and I didn’t even spend that much time on it.
@Mark C , you are an untrustworthy teacher. If you fell for this then you are too simple and uncritical to be attempting to teach others. I hesitate to think what it means if you didn’t fall for it.
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.
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.