Thankful for the Dead Sea Scrolls but what does their discovery truly mean as evidence ?

[bountifulove4]

As Christians can we believe the truth that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are what God himself has preserved ?

as Jesus had explained to his Hebrew speaking people that neither a jot nor one tittle would pass away from the Law….

Jesus was never propagating a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, the Jot is a Hebrew letter, the Tittle is a small mark distinguishing Hebrew verbs. (third - person singular simple present… ect...

A Greek Septuagint would not have any jots nor any tittles for Jesus to be vindicating.



What many people do not know is that 4 times the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Translation deletes or removes the word Lord or Yahweh in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Lam 4:20 …… Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins...
2Sa 23:1 ….. Christ of the God of Jacob.
Psa 84:9 ….. look on the face of thy Christ.
Hab 3:13 ….. for salvation with thy Christ.


Again, the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims deletes or removes the word Anointed in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ


Here are the 4 other times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Psa 2:2 …..against the Lord, and against his Christ.
1Sa 2:10 ..... exalt the horn of his Christ
Dan 9:25 unto Christ, the prince
Dan 9:26 ….. Christ shall be slain


The Catholic Translation takes 8 select passages from the Old Testament that Catholics feel could be considered a prophetic future foretelling of Jesus and they remove the original words of " Lord " and " Anointing " and replace it with Christ

Catholics are correct and right - to identify Christ - in the Old Testament - but this is not the way the Bible was transmitted in the original language – to take titles and names of the New Testament that were written in another language and make cuts and selected preferences of a few choice - personal doctrinal passages where these titles and names should be applied and where they would be left out –

Catholics have removed the original meaning and application in how the scripture was given, applied and understood by the Jewish people and have inserted a future - event back inside the Old Testament, completely removing the way it was understood and what it means and says.


The original message of the Old Testament is written to keep hidden that Jesus the Son Of God would someday be manifested, the Old Testament Prophets and Saints of old knew absolutely nothing about the Son Of God nor of his future role in salvation.


Yes, he is mysteriously secretly concealed and hidden in the Old Testament

Col 1:26 Jesus Christ is a mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Rom 16:25 Jesus Christ is a mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.


Does changing the word Lord into the word Christ in the Catholic Old Testament discredit and remove the way its prophecy was written to be as hidden and as concealed, to insert the idea that the Jews had discovered the Lord himself was the Christ before his arival ?


IN CONCLUSION

I mention this because the claim is made that for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus was born the Jews used a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament and if this truth the Greek word Christos would have been truly used to indicate the Anointed

but the truth is the Catholic Church took the word Anointed that is used 80 + times in the Old Testament and translated this word into Christos / Christ only 4 random times in their English translation but the other 76 + times they translated it as the English word Anointed


because there were no known manuscripts claimed to be Greek Septuagint until 1947



Carbon dating ink is not 100 % precise, and direct radiocarbon dating of historical ink is rarely done because inks are mineral-based and lack enough carbon, while carbon dating ink and organic material can be off by a few centuries

In fact, some of the Dead Sea Scroll parchments are proven to have been written after Christ and even then, carbon dating is not exact - it provides a statistical range of centuries.

The truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many fragments, some, that were produced during the First Jewish-Roman War, and these fragments could have been produced decades or a full - century after Jesus Christ

- and the evidence that is provided of all BC material is not from carbon dating = THE MAIN EVIDENCE GIVEN IS THE HANDWRITING STYLES - - SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT STYLE OF HANDWRITING CAN BE PROOF OF CATALOG AS 100 % PROOF FOR DATING MANUSCRIPTS.

BUT - WHAT IF THE WRITER WAS ATTEMPTING TO COPY A HANDWRITING STYLE ?
THEN THE PROOF IS A FALSE EVIDENCE.


The Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus in any way and were not trying to produce Greek scripture to coincide and batch up with the prophecy fulfilled in a New Testament changing the word Lord into the word Christ as Catholics have done in their translation .

These prophetic meanings were kept secret, hidden and concealed by God himself until Jesus revealed them, not revelation found in a Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before.

The Greek Septuagint is a theory built entirely upon assumption and imagination without a single factual proof for evidence and the Roman Catholic Church attempts to insert Christ and replace Lord into the Old Testament as if the Old Testament expressed something that was kept secret and hidden by God himself. - to suggest that even the jews had previous Septuagint knowledge of what God himself had hidden.

the truth is that there is not enough fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls claimed to be Septuagint to even determine what it written in Greek, either way, but the Catholic Church has used both so - called Septuagint and Masoretic texts to translate its bible but has had no early fragments until the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 -

none of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus nor the Latin Vulgate changed the word " lord " into " christ " in the Old Testament but Catholics have done it 4 times in their translation of 1582.

does this alter the message that God intended for Israel when the Holy Spirit spoke ?

 

[joestue]

The Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus in any way and were not trying to produce Greek scripture to coincide and batch up with the prophecy fulfilled in a New Testament changing the word Lord into the word Christ as Catholics have done in their translation .

that is quite the claim but i think that Jesus refutes at least a good portion of it when he rebukes the pharisees for not recognizing him, not recognizing the time, and told them they should have known Moses spoke of him.

 

[bountifulove4]

i understand

Matthew 16:2–3: ......You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."

Luke 12:56: .......you do not know how to interpret the present time.


please consider that Jesus was filled with the same " anointing " / christ, the very same anointing Spirit Of Holy that was in him was also in Moses and all of prophets

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; ........ they are they which testify of me.

:46 Moses,....... he wrote of me.

the reality is that there was no mention of the son of God announced by a prophet before Jesus arrived,

there is a vague random mention of " someone appearing in the similarity as the " son of the god's " made by a King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon - the text is written in Aramaic (bar elahin), where elahin is plural.

Literally, it means " a son of the gods " this was a pagan concept and was not something that was believed by the Prophets and people of Israel.

The Old Testament mentions God manifesting himself in human form but he his appearance and manifestation was not described nor understood as " The Son Of God " -nor as - " A future Redeemer " -nor as - A Messiah.

this was hidden and secret and was not presented as signs that were to be looked for and anticipated until Jesus provided " signs of the times." and connected them with the Prophets and prophecy

And until Jesus presented evidence to know how to interpret the present time because the Jews did not know how to interpret something that was designed in scripture to be completely secret, and kept hidden until the Lord revealed the hidden.

Jesus ministry was all not about wandering through the lands pointing to the Old Testament and simply presenting prophecy about himself and rebuking people concerning prophecy alone, he presented vindication and evidence in works he performed, an abundance of works that had never been performed by a single man before him.

so the question is - how exactly was this prophecy hidden, the truth is the way it was hidden was in the way God works to put the natural with the spiritual,

if we are honest Christians we admit that there is no prophecy that specifically details that a virgin will conceive, this was understood by the Hebrew Scriptures as the word " ‛ almâh " which means a young woman and is used to describe both a virgin and a young woman in the Bible

‛ alem " is the male form of a young man


this prophecy and all of the other prophecy concerning Jesus are not clearly laid out for a Jewish person at the time of authored to comprehend and understand before Jesus Christ, it is secretly mentioned, hidden behind a veil of mystery and silence, as allusion and as suggestive language concerning things that are already transpiring and happening at the very time it was written but Jesus comes and takes it and applies to himself, spiritually, things that have already occurred in the natural.

this is the honestly of the prophecy of Jesus, it is written about events and circumstances and people that have already come and gone, but re- directed and re- applied suddenly and unexpectedly from the secret and hidden to Jesus himself without anything in scripture to verify it was about him - just random one liners, phrases and single sentences mixed in a body of writings that have no contextual bearing or indication nor knowledge of Jesus, the Son Of God in the passages.

this is why he performed the works, miracles and signs and pointed constantly to the secret, hidden passages that God kept hidden for the Anointing to reveal upon his birth.

meaning = to go into the Old Testament using a Catholic Translation or Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus or the Septuagint and insert ideas and make changes for what the Hebrew Manuscripts say with no manuscript evidence of a BC Septuagint existing except imaginative claims and fantasy history - no manuscripts until nearly 2000 years later, using carbon dating with a range of centuries to vindicate them based on their handwritten styles .... to attempt to validate the New Testament

does this not change the message and manner of that God intended when he intended to keep it completely hidden and a secret and mystery ?

the Septuagint literally declares that God is untruthful.

All Jesus had to do is point to the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus that never existed until 300 - 600 years after he was born, or possibly longer, and show the Greek words a " Virgin " shall conceive


but this is not the way the Old Testament described his birth, no one at his time would see the word Virgin in any of their Old Testament scriptures because as the scripture says, it was hidden and secret and no one would see the meaning until Jesus himself came and revealed it, showing what was hidden, secret and unknown that the Spirit Of Holy had placed secretly and hidden in prophecy, directing these past events to Jesus himself as a part of the prophecy and its power and associated with the miracles of Gods anointing word.

Jesus associates these past events to himself to say he is a part of the spirit of prophecy and connected to the same anointing as the word of God himself, the past events that happened before and things concerning the anointing of God are the same of himself and - not necessary revelation or prophecy plainly showing him, but associated and with the same authority and also as a part of his own ministry, experience, work and revelation.

 

[Bill]

i understand

Matthew 16:2–3: ......You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."

Luke 12:56: .......you do not know how to interpret the present time.


please consider that Jesus was filled with the same " anointing " / christ, the very same anointing Spirit Of Holy that was in him was also in Moses and all of prophets

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; ........ they are they which testify of me.

:46 Moses,....... he wrote of me.

the reality is that there was no mention of the son of God announced by a prophet before Jesus arrived,

there is a vague random mention of " someone appearing in the similarity as the " son of the god's " made by a King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon - the text is written in Aramaic (bar elahin), where elahin is plural.

Literally, it means " a son of the gods " this was a pagan concept and was not something that was believed by the Prophets and people of Israel.

The Old Testament mentions God manifesting himself in human form but he his appearance and manifestation was not described nor understood as " The Son Of God " -nor as - " A future Redeemer " -nor as - A Messiah.

this was hidden and secret and was not presented as signs that were to be looked for and anticipated until Jesus provided " signs of the times." and connected them with the Prophets and prophecy

And until Jesus presented evidence to know how to interpret the present time because the Jews did not know how to interpret something that was designed in scripture to be completely secret, and kept hidden until the Lord revealed the hidden.

Jesus ministry was all not about wandering through the lands pointing to the Old Testament and simply presenting prophecy about himself and rebuking people concerning prophecy alone, he presented vindication and evidence in works he performed, an abundance of works that had never been performed by a single man before him.

so the question is - how exactly was this prophecy hidden, the truth is the way it was hidden was in the way God works to put the natural with the spiritual,

if we are honest Christians we admit that there is no prophecy that specifically details that a virgin will conceive, this was understood by the Hebrew Scriptures as the word " ‛ almâh " which means a young woman and is used to describe both a virgin and a young woman in the Bible

‛ alem " is the male form of a young man


this prophecy and all of the other prophecy concerning Jesus are not clearly laid out for a Jewish person at the time of authored to comprehend and understand before Jesus Christ, it is secretly mentioned, hidden behind a veil of mystery and silence, as allusion and as suggestive language concerning things that are already transpiring and happening at the very time it was written but Jesus comes and takes it and applies to himself, spiritually, things that have already occurred in the natural.

this is the honestly of the prophecy of Jesus, it is written about events and circumstances and people that have already come and gone, but re- directed and re- applied suddenly and unexpectedly from the secret and hidden to Jesus himself without anything in scripture to verify it was about him - just random one liners, phrases and single sentences mixed in a body of writings that have no contextual bearing or indication nor knowledge of Jesus, the Son Of God in the passages.

this is why he performed the works, miracles and signs and pointed constantly to the secret, hidden passages that God kept hidden for the Anointing to reveal upon his birth.

meaning = to go into the Old Testament using a Catholic Translation or Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus or the Septuagint and insert ideas and make changes for what the Hebrew Manuscripts say with no manuscript evidence of a BC Septuagint existing except imaginative claims and fantasy history - no manuscripts until nearly 2000 years later, using carbon dating with a range of centuries to vindicate them based on their handwritten styles .... to attempt to validate the New Testament

does this not change the message and manner of that God intended when he intended to keep it completely hidden and a secret and mystery ?

the Septuagint literally declares that God is untruthful.

All Jesus had to do is point to the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus that never existed until 300 - 600 years after he was born, or possibly longer, and show the Greek words a " Virgin " shall conceive


but this is not the way the Old Testament described his birth, no one at his time would see the word Virgin in any of their Old Testament scriptures because as the scripture says, it was hidden and secret and no one would see the meaning until Jesus himself came and revealed it, showing what was hidden, secret and unknown that the Spirit Of Holy had placed secretly and hidden in prophecy, directing these past events to Jesus himself as a part of the prophecy and its power and associated with the miracles of Gods anointing word.

Jesus associates these past events to himself to say he is a part of the spirit of prophecy and connected to the same anointing as the word of God himself, the past events that happened before and things concerning the anointing of God are the same of himself and - not necessary revelation or prophecy plainly showing him, but associated and with the same authority and also as a part of his own ministry, experience, work and revelation.

May Jesus fill us with his Love and Wisdom

Dear Brother Bear,bountifulove4
You know that i am catholic, and i do stand with the true catholic church and boldly speak against the heritics that presently occupy the vatican.

This being said. I hold no ill will to any of my brothers and sisters in any of the other Christian churches. But i do wonder why is there such focus against catholics. Are we that much a threat? It is the way i feel at times here at Talk Jesus.

Going back to your words. I do know that the Hebrew translation into English can not be complete as we do not have the correct verbage in our language. The primary and best example is when God talks to Moses. In English it reads, "I am who am". But the correct phonic understanding in English would be "I's am whom am".

This departure from the single entity as translated over the years in english shows us that the Hebrews understood, God had 2 beings. This is God and the Spirit

 

[Gothedral]

i understand

No you do not:

...
please consider that Jesus was filled with the same " anointing " / christ, the very same anointing Spirit Of Holy that was in him was also in Moses and all of prophets

Judas said the same thing, calling him just another cool "rabbi" rather than GOD. The synagogue of Satan behaves this way, too. And here you are despite the proper use of ancient Hebrew (Notarikon, Gematria, and PaRDeS) interpretation, translation, and execution.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; ........ they are they which testify of me.

:46 Moses,....... he wrote of me.

the reality is that there was no mention of the son of God announced by a prophet before Jesus arrived,

The Notarikon of Genesis 1:1-2 suffices... but here is Genesis 3:13–15 from the Literal Standard Version (LSV) text:

¹³ And YHWH God says to the woman, “What [is] this you have done?” And the woman says, “The serpent deceived me, and I eat.”

¹⁴ And YHWH God says to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed [are] you above all the livestock, and above every beast of the field; on your belly you go, and dust you eat all the days of your life;

¹⁵ and I put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He bruises you [on] the head, and you bruise Him [on] the heel.”

Of the two genders, only men produce seed. God blessed Mary with immaculate conception.
And there is enmity between the Devil's seed and this Virgin's Seed by God's Wisdom.
Her seed is clearly The Son, The Word, The Way, The Truth, The Life Who Is Divine and overpowers His creations, especially those who behave devilishly. Crucifixions came later. prophecy.

Genesis also explicitly proves that Adam & Eve taught the complex laws of sacrificial worship, offerings, and the invocation of the Holy Name of IEHOVAH to their children... Gen. 4:3-4, and verse 26 for starters. Eber's language.

"Except ye repent, ye shall all in likewise perish" - Christ Is God.
Devils leave as they are told, but people have to think about it? Please live a penitent life - we only have a lifetime.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Question: Thankful for the Dead Sea Scrolls but what does their discovery truly mean as evidence?

My Answer: Very little really. This discovery just has us in the possession of an earlier, closer to the source evidence for the state of the Hebrew biblical texts at the time prior to Christianity and after. Which of course can always be compared to later manuscript finds and allows one to see the consistency between copied documents.

With the Love in Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/

 

[Bill]

Question: Thankful for the Dead Sea Scrolls but what does their discovery truly mean as evidence?

My Answer: Very little really. This discovery just has us in the possession of an earlier, closer to the source evidence for the state of the Hebrew biblical texts at the time prior to Christianity and after. Which of course can always be compared to later manuscript finds and allows one to see the consistency between copied documents.

With the Love in Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Thank you for correcting that. I thought it was Brother Bear, as he also posted a lot of scripture in his writings. I guess I just don't see the name correctly.

 

[NBTT]

This discovery just has us in the possession of an earlier, closer to the source evidence for the state of the Hebrew biblical texts at the time prior to Christianity and after.

This. I have seen multiple theologians thankful that God preserved these older texts. The incredible prophesies in the Hebrew biblical texts caused doubters to suggest that prophetic books were actually written after the events took place. The dead sea scrolls put those false arguments to rest. For those who were already believers the dead sea scrolls change nothing.

 

[Gothedral]

Question: "Thankful for the Dead Sea Scrolls, but what does their discovery truly mean as evidence?"

Even the "Pseudepigrapha" brings me joy and strengthens my relationship with Jesus Christ Our Savior God. I thank Heavenly Father for the Way to fact-check "all the books in the world" against themselves and each other... it leads me back to Jesus, Adonai, IEHOVAH... I praise and call on His Holy Name even now for such findings. For gratitude and guidance. For the same Holy Spirit of Truth that Shepherds me through the current events news and day to day activities.

All that because another archaeological discovery evidences proof of the war for our souls.

 

[bountifulove4]

The focus for me, personally, is upon the truth regarding all things,

this particular subject that deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls is to present full evidence that the Greek Septuagint is a fraud without a single shred of evidence of its existence before Jesus Christ ..

The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church does not posses nor did it preserve any manuscripts whatsoever of the Masoretic Hebrew Text - yet, its own Latin Vulgate and English Douay Rheims translations are both translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text


yet, the only manuscripts that The Catholic Church has possesses for the Old Testament is Codex Vaticanus

The Vatican holds Codex Vaticanus as one of its most prized historical biblical manuscripts and a primary witness to the text of the Septuagint.


but yet the Vatican claims that the Latin Vulgate is based directly upon a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text- yet, the Vatican only has preserved and made copies of the Greek alone

and has no Hebrew texts, disregarding everything in Hebrew regarding manuscripts for the last 1000 years

there are very major differences between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Codex Vaticanus

Numbers and Chronology: different lengths of lifespans.
Certain books of the Hebrew Torah are noticeably different in size.
Missing or Added Verses between the two


Codex Alexandrinus— specifically changes the " Sons of God " to say " the angels of God" but the Codex Vaticanus does not say this - - -

Codex Vaticanus leaves the term as " Sons of God " again contradicting the Septuagint.



the conflict and contradictions is the fact that the Catholic Church promotes a deceptive message

becasue - .....as the Catholic Church proclaims the the Codex Vaticanus as a prized manuscripts and primary witness to the text of the Septuagint but the truth is that this Vaticanus manuscript actually agrees in harmony with the Hebrew Masoretic Text

but because the Greek language is used in both Codex Vaticanus and the Septuagint the Catholic Church points to this as proof for the evidence of the Septuagint - as if this is proof.

and the Catholic Church has always promoted the Apocrypha as a part of its Bible translations and uses this fact to also point to proof of the Septuagint


- simply based on the fact that Hebrew Masoretic Text does not include the Apocrypha -

the Catholic Church points to this fact as proof that it was a part of the Greek

this is all circular reasoning

 

[bountifulove4]

.
the real answer to the question is


# 1. if the Apocrypha was not added into the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th to 6th century, possibly 600 years after Jesus Christ, the Vatican would not have any validation to promote it as the Septuagint manuscript ?

400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ the Apocrypha was added into a complete Greek book

before this the Apocrypha was nothing more than scattered independent books - IN FACT - before being added and compiled into { Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus } the books of the Apocrypha existed as individual, independent literary scrolls, rather than a unified, bound collection, they circulated loosely across the Mediterranean world and later were collected and put together 400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ ?

- Apocrypha was never included within the rest of any Greek or Hebrew Bible -
- Apocrypha were never even gathered together themselves in a circulated book or scroll !

until 400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ


and

# 2. does the evidence pointing to similarity between the style of Greek for the Codex Vaticanus and the Dead Sea Scrolls truly prove that a Septuagint existed before Jesus Christ,

could not this be a argument completely against the Septuagint as the Codex Vaticanus was not copied or written until the 4th to 6th century and the same Style of Greek would have been used for both

 

[bountifulove4]

the truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Greek texts make up a small minority (roughly 3%) of the overall Dead Sea Scrolls collection

and these do not even account for even 0.1% of the Septuagint

 

[bountifulove4]

that the first the truth is only the first five books of the Torah are all that were supposably translated as - Septuagint

 

[joestue]

but yet the Vatican claims that the Latin Vulgate is based directly upon a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text- yet, the Vatican only has preserved and made copies of the Greek alone

and has no Hebrew texts, disregarding everything in Hebrew regarding manuscripts for the last 1000 years

so if you want to go down that rabbit hole..

you will be curious to note that there are no Hebrew texts other than the old testament. anywhere. its all gone, if it ever did exist. that's why the Vatican doesn't have any. This is traditionally explained by papyrus doesn't last very long. but where are the clay pottery fragments with entire chapters of Leviticus on them? don't tell me it won't fit.

there is also not sufficient text to translate the paleo hebrew (which is basically phonetician) into the supposed 6th century bc hebrew at the time they went to babylon. we have maybe a couple words equivalent, where Egyptians speak of Joseph, (allegedly) and YHWH.

and the entire volume of the OT only contains about 7000 unique words. not very many...

so.. did hebrew even exist prior to Christ? or did the Greek copies of the OT exist in 2-300bc and then they got translated into a madeup "hebrew language"

i am uh, not the person who came up with this stuff.

so anyhow its no surprise to me that as far back as Jeremiah, chapter 7 verse 22. he told them they made it all up. "I did not speak to you concerning sacrifices or burnt offerings in the days i brought you out of Egypt. but this i commanded you: obey my voice, and i will be your God"

 

[Bill]

The focus for me, personally, is upon the truth regarding all things,

this particular subject that deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls is to present full evidence that the Greek Septuagint is a fraud without a single shred of evidence of its existence before Jesus Christ ..

The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church does not posses nor did it preserve any manuscripts whatsoever of the Masoretic Hebrew Text - yet, its own Latin Vulgate and English Douay Rheims translations are both translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text


yet, the only manuscripts that The Catholic Church has possesses for the Old Testament is Codex Vaticanus

The Vatican holds Codex Vaticanus as one of its most prized historical biblical manuscripts and a primary witness to the text of the Septuagint.


but yet the Vatican claims that the Latin Vulgate is based directly upon a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text- yet, the Vatican only has preserved and made copies of the Greek alone

and has no Hebrew texts, disregarding everything in Hebrew regarding manuscripts for the last 1000 years

there are very major differences between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Codex Vaticanus

Numbers and Chronology: different lengths of lifespans.
Certain books of the Hebrew Torah are noticeably different in size.
Missing or Added Verses between the two


Codex Alexandrinus— specifically changes the " Sons of God " to say " the angels of God" but the Codex Vaticanus does not say this - - -

Codex Vaticanus leaves the term as " Sons of God " again contradicting the Septuagint.



the conflict and contradictions is the fact that the Catholic Church promotes a deceptive message

becasue - .....as the Catholic Church proclaims the the Codex Vaticanus as a prized manuscripts and primary witness to the text of the Septuagint but the truth is that this Vaticanus manuscript actually agrees in harmony with the Hebrew Masoretic Text

but because the Greek language is used in both Codex Vaticanus and the Septuagint the Catholic Church points to this as proof for the evidence of the Septuagint - as if this is proof.

and the Catholic Church has always promoted the Apocrypha as a part of its Bible translations and uses this fact to also point to proof of the Septuagint


- simply based on the fact that Hebrew Masoretic Text does not include the Apocrypha -

the Catholic Church points to this fact as proof that it was a part of the Greek

this is all circular reasoning

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Isn't it true that the first KJV had the Apocrypha?

 

[Bill]

the truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Greek texts make up a small minority (roughly 3%) of the overall Dead Sea Scrolls collection

and these do not even account for even 0.1% of the Septuagint

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Something that should be noted, the Bible itself was brought together around the year 300.

Most of what is known of the Hebrew scripture is a verbal translation of it. As We Know the Levites were instructed to memorize everything. Very little was written down as it had gone through all the episodes of slavery and control from other countries. So everything was handed down father to son and the Levites were the ones who were instructed to be the priests and to make sure that every law and every word was to be memorized and handed down

 

[Brad Huber]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Isn't it true that the first KJV had the Apocrypha?

Yes, I have a copy of the original KJV with the Apocrypha.

 

[KingJ]

As Christians can we believe the truth that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are what God himself has preserved ?

as Jesus had explained to his Hebrew speaking people that neither a jot nor one tittle would pass away from the Law….

Jesus was never propagating a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, the Jot is a Hebrew letter, the Tittle is a small mark distinguishing Hebrew verbs. (third - person singular simple present… ect...

A Greek Septuagint would not have any jots nor any tittles for Jesus to be vindicating.



What many people do not know is that 4 times the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Translation deletes or removes the word Lord or Yahweh in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Lam 4:20 …… Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins...
2Sa 23:1 ….. Christ of the God of Jacob.
Psa 84:9 ….. look on the face of thy Christ.
Hab 3:13 ….. for salvation with thy Christ.


Again, the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims deletes or removes the word Anointed in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ


Here are the 4 other times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Psa 2:2 …..against the Lord, and against his Christ.
1Sa 2:10 ..... exalt the horn of his Christ
Dan 9:25 unto Christ, the prince
Dan 9:26 ….. Christ shall be slain


The Catholic Translation takes 8 select passages from the Old Testament that Catholics feel could be considered a prophetic future foretelling of Jesus and they remove the original words of " Lord " and " Anointing " and replace it with Christ

Catholics are correct and right - to identify Christ - in the Old Testament - but this is not the way the Bible was transmitted in the original language – to take titles and names of the New Testament that were written in another language and make cuts and selected preferences of a few choice - personal doctrinal passages where these titles and names should be applied and where they would be left out –

Catholics have removed the original meaning and application in how the scripture was given, applied and understood by the Jewish people and have inserted a future - event back inside the Old Testament, completely removing the way it was understood and what it means and says.


The original message of the Old Testament is written to keep hidden that Jesus the Son Of God would someday be manifested, the Old Testament Prophets and Saints of old knew absolutely nothing about the Son Of God nor of his future role in salvation.


Yes, he is mysteriously secretly concealed and hidden in the Old Testament

Col 1:26 Jesus Christ is a mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Rom 16:25 Jesus Christ is a mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.


Does changing the word Lord into the word Christ in the Catholic Old Testament discredit and remove the way its prophecy was written to be as hidden and as concealed, to insert the idea that the Jews had discovered the Lord himself was the Christ before his arival ?


IN CONCLUSION

I mention this because the claim is made that for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus was born the Jews used a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament and if this truth the Greek word Christos would have been truly used to indicate the Anointed

but the truth is the Catholic Church took the word Anointed that is used 80 + times in the Old Testament and translated this word into Christos / Christ only 4 random times in their English translation but the other 76 + times they translated it as the English word Anointed


because there were no known manuscripts claimed to be Greek Septuagint until 1947



Carbon dating ink is not 100 % precise, and direct radiocarbon dating of historical ink is rarely done because inks are mineral-based and lack enough carbon, while carbon dating ink and organic material can be off by a few centuries

In fact, some of the Dead Sea Scroll parchments are proven to have been written after Christ and even then, carbon dating is not exact - it provides a statistical range of centuries.

The truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many fragments, some, that were produced during the First Jewish-Roman War, and these fragments could have been produced decades or a full - century after Jesus Christ

- and the evidence that is provided of all BC material is not from carbon dating = THE MAIN EVIDENCE GIVEN IS THE HANDWRITING STYLES - - SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT STYLE OF HANDWRITING CAN BE PROOF OF CATALOG AS 100 % PROOF FOR DATING MANUSCRIPTS.

BUT - WHAT IF THE WRITER WAS ATTEMPTING TO COPY A HANDWRITING STYLE ?
THEN THE PROOF IS A FALSE EVIDENCE.


The Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus in any way and were not trying to produce Greek scripture to coincide and batch up with the prophecy fulfilled in a New Testament changing the word Lord into the word Christ as Catholics have done in their translation .

These prophetic meanings were kept secret, hidden and concealed by God himself until Jesus revealed them, not revelation found in a Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before.

The Greek Septuagint is a theory built entirely upon assumption and imagination without a single factual proof for evidence and the Roman Catholic Church attempts to insert Christ and replace Lord into the Old Testament as if the Old Testament expressed something that was kept secret and hidden by God himself. - to suggest that even the jews had previous Septuagint knowledge of what God himself had hidden.

the truth is that there is not enough fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls claimed to be Septuagint to even determine what it written in Greek, either way, but the Catholic Church has used both so - called Septuagint and Masoretic texts to translate its bible but has had no early fragments until the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 -

none of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or Codex Alexandrinus nor the Latin Vulgate changed the word " lord " into " christ " in the Old Testament but Catholics have done it 4 times in their translation of 1582.

does this alter the message that God intended for Israel when the Holy Spirit spoke ?

The biggest issue with your OP argument is that you appear to be denying that Christ was genuinely revealed in the Old Testament. You repeatedly argue that the prophets knew "absolutely nothing" about the Son of God or His future role in salvation because Paul calls it a mystery that was hidden.

But Scripture does not say that Christ was completely unknown in the Old Testament. It says that the mystery was not fully revealed.

Peter says that the prophets "searched diligently" concerning the salvation that was to come and specifically speaks of "the Spirit of Christ which was in them" (1 Peter 1:10-11).

Jesus Himself said that Moses and all the prophets spoke concerning Him (Luke 24:27).

So there is a very important distinction between Christ being fully understood and Christ being revealed through the Old Testament.

Your argument seems to turn "hidden" into "completely absent" and I don't believe Scripture supports that.

Old Testament passages concerning the coming Messiah / Christ​

• Genesis 3:15 — The promised seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. This is understood by Christians as the first Messianic promise.
• Genesis 22:18 — God promises Abraham that through his "seed" all nations of the earth would be blessed. Paul later identifies this promised seed with Christ in Galatians 3:16.
• Deuteronomy 18:15–18 — Moses speaks of a coming prophet whom God would raise up like Moses. Peter applies this to Christ in Acts 3:20–23.
• 2 Samuel 7:12–16 — God promises David an everlasting kingdom and throne through his descendant. The New Testament identifies Christ as the fulfillment of the Davidic promise.
• Psalm 2:1–12 — The LORD's Anointed is opposed by the nations and is identified as God's Son. The New Testament repeatedly applies this to Christ in Acts 4:25–27 and Hebrews 1:5.
• Psalm 16:8–11 — David speaks of God's Holy One not seeing corruption. Peter applies this directly to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 2:25–32.
• Psalm 22 — Contains remarkable details concerning suffering and rejection. The New Testament connects several parts of this Psalm with Christ's crucifixion.
• Psalm 110:1–4 — David speaks of his Lord sitting at God's right hand and being a priest forever. Jesus Himself applies this to the Messiah in Matthew 22:41–46 and Peter applies it to Christ in Acts 2:34–36.
• Isaiah 7:14 — The promised child called Immanuel. Matthew applies this to Jesus in Matthew 1:22–23.
• Isaiah 9:6–7 — The promised child and Son who will reign on David's throne forever.
• Isaiah 11:1–10 — The Branch from Jesse who will rule in righteousness. Paul applies this to Christ in Romans 15:12.
• Isaiah 42:1–4 — God's chosen Servant who will bring justice to the nations. Matthew explicitly applies this to Jesus in Matthew 12:17–21.
• Isaiah 52:13–53:12 — The suffering Servant who is rejected and wounded for the transgressions of others. Philip explains this passage as referring to Jesus in Acts 8:30–35.
• Micah 5:2 — The ruler who would come from Bethlehem. Matthew applies this to the birth of Christ in Matthew 2:5–6.
• Zechariah 9:9 — Israel's King comes riding on a donkey. Matthew applies this to Jesus in Matthew 21:4–5.
• Zechariah 12:10 — The one who is pierced. John applies this to Christ's crucifixion in John 19:37.
• Daniel 9:25–26 — Daniel specifically speaks of "Messiah the Prince" and says that Messiah would be "cut off."

One of the clearest verses rebutting your OP argument is Daniel 9:25–26. The Old Testament itself explicitly uses the term Messiah.

Daniel 9:25–26 KJV:

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself..."

The Hebrew word translated Messiah is mashiach meaning anointed one.

So how can we say that the coming Messiah was completely hidden from the Old Testament prophets when Daniel himself explicitly speaks of Messiah the Prince and says that Messiah would be cut off?

You can argue that the prophets did not fully understand everything concerning Christ and His work. Scripture supports that. But that is very different from saying they knew "absolutely nothing" about the Son of God or His future role in salvation.

 

[bountifulove4]

thank you " KingJ " for the reply


Please consider the Hebrew characters of the Old Testament such as Abraham and Sarah, Sarah whose womb was completely dead and Abraham was so old that he could no longer have children.


Rom 4:17 ……” Abraham “ … he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

:18 Who against hope believed in hope,.............according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.


:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:


:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;




Could we consider that perhaps it was not a strange behavior for Sarah to have offered Hagar her hired worker to Abraham as a wife in order to fulfill the promise that God had made to her and Abraham.


Can we put ourselves in Abraham and Sarah’s place who received the world of God concerning a child that was to be born from Sarah.


We see that Sarah and Abraham put their faith forth and tried to fulfill Gods promise through Hagar.


We see the realistic reaction from Sarah and Abraham who believed God and had faith but did not fully understand and realize exactly what God had planned.


can we imagine the situation they were in and the impossible thing that God had promised Sarah and Abraham who were just simple human beings who had human feelings and natural instincts…….. their faith was strong and unwavering, they trusted God but they did not truly understand the plan that God had for Sarah to be healed.


please remember

Gen 11:30……. But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Sarah was completely barren all of her life…..


Imagine yourself unable to have children for all of your life and the reality that sinks into a persons mind

Gen 17:16 I will ........... give thee a son also of .......Sarah....... she shall be a mother of nations

:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

Gen 17:16 I will ........... give thee a son also of .......Sarah....... she shall be a mother of nations
:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

Gen 18 :11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?


When we consider this story and think of the actions of Abraham and Sarah in trying to fulfill Gods promise through Hagar, this situation is simply a miracle that was performed by God upon a man and woman who are just simply human beings living their life and see through human eyes and have simple human understanding

as all of us.


When we think upon how we see through our eyes when today we are tempted to perceive the lack of faith of the Godly Old Testament characters and prophets of God and understand that Sarah and Abraham did not have all of the answers and only could take God at his word through their human understanding and fragile capabilities. …….


Perhaps we could realize that the Old Testament Jews did not truly understand that God would send Jesus Christ and that sometimes we tend to insert expectations and our own understanding into the Old Testament


is it unfair to the Hebrew people who did not see the Old Testament through the eyes of God but only had human eyes. ? ?



As Gentiles - are we any truly any different from the Jews who did not have the New Testament, in fact, as Gentiles we have lived for nearly 2000 years without translating the Bible into any other language



…...as though the Bible itself was worthless for Gentiles around the planet or anyone who could not speak Greek or Latin - are we truly different from the Jews in understanding and dealing with things beyond our control ? ?


THE ENTIRE IDEA AND CONCEPT OF A COMPLETED BIBLE TRANSLATION MOVING BEYOND THE ANCIENT LATIN AND GREEK AND INTO A MODERN REAL-TIME WORLD LANGUAGE -

THIS CONCEPT AND IDEA - THIS IS A TOTAL AND FREAK ACCIDENT, IN THE GENTILE WORLD.

A MISTAKE -

A GENTILE MISTAKE, THAT SUDDENLY ACCIDENTALLY JUST HAPPENED TO ACCIDENTALLY APPEAR and OCCUR BEHIND OUR BACKS - nearly, 2000 years after the book was written - Gentiles found the miracle of an updated translation of the Bible into a modern language,

as if God himself did something that Gentiles never planned themselves to do for 2000 years

Are things truly different for the behavior of the Jews concerning faith in Gods word ?


If God planned to hide his method of salvation through Christ Jesus - he did a very good job,

it was not the Jews that kept this hidden it was God himself.






Col 1:26 Jesus Christ is a mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Rom 16:25 Jesus Christ is a mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.