Early Christian writings along with the NT...

[pinacled]

Please, just a question. What you do if\when the opposite is true?

Excellent que

 

[pinacled]

עֵינַ֣יִם
Yeshayahu(isaiah)
42

לִפְקֹ֖חַ עֵינַ֣יִם עִוְר֑וֹת לְהוֹצִ֤יא מִמַּסְגֵּר֙ אַסִּ֔יר מִבֵּ֥ית כֶּ֖לֶא יֹ֥שְׁבֵי חֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

Opening eyes deprived of light, Rescuing prisoners from confinement, From the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

 

[pinacled]

Good soil upon ones eyes brings forth a blessing to seek.

Shabbat Shalom

 

[Andrew]

It is close but it is not verbatim.

I agree, "verbatim" was an over statement, I find it more so-to-speak "verbatim" than that of the Masoretic

You left out two phrases from your Luke citation: (1) "to set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18) and (2) "to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor" (Luke 4:19). Both are part of the text, quoted by Jesus, and important.

Also true, both instill the same basic phrase just worded differently, However "recovery of site to the blind" even if you choose to allude it with "opening of prisons to those who are bound" is still a different scenario, the latter being a more watered down version that disagrees with both the LXX and Jesus (and put there by unbelieving Jews via the Masoretic).. Jesus was literally healing the blind, Isaiah says the same thing when you use the original Hebrew Text that Jesus was reading from, which the Septuagint was translated from...
What are the odds that Jesus includes "sight to the blind" and a greek translation of Isaiah written centuries before says that exact phrase?

The only way to really tell if the two are verbatim is to examine the whole Greek text.

Here is the text from Isaiah 61:1-2:
Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ̓ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με
ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν
καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν

Here is the text from Luke 4:18:
Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με
ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν


The first thing to note is the part in red. That is not found Isaiah 61:1 but comes from Isaiah 58:6.
Also which it is the same verb they are difference forms, hence they are not the same.
The verb ἀπόστελλε in Isaiah 58:6 is a 2nd person singular active imperative.
The verb ἀποστεῖλαι in Luke 4:18 is a aorist active infinite.

The second thing to note are the parts in blue. The verb in Isaiah 61:2 is καλέω while the verb in Luke 4:19 is κηρύσσω.
καλέω (Isaiah 61:2)
κηρύσσω (Luke 4:19)
Clearly the verbs are difference.

Could you specify the verbs being used?
I understand your point that they aren't entirely verbatim/identical, we don't have a copy of the original greek translation of Isaiah only the translations from Latin, a few minor words will be lost in translation so I am not disagreeing with that.
In fact Jerome used the proto-Masoretic text for his new vulgate (after studying under Rabbis in Bethlehem) but used the LXX in places where Christians would take notice objectively, so Jerome's translation was a bit of a hybrid, i.e. proto-Masoretic Hebrew text says "a Maiden shall conceive" vs LXX "a Virgin shall conceive" thus our modern OT masoretic bibles says "a Virgin shall conceive"

There are parts of our Christian OT that are taken from the Septuagint version, however the hebrew Tanakh claims the true estate thus for the "Hebrew only" Christians, if that's their authority then the Messiahs miraculous birth was never prophesied.

While we are on the subject of the "Virgin", I have heard numerous Jewish Rabbi apologist make the claim that BECAUSE he was to be born of a young woman and not a virgin than any claims of a miraculous virgin birth is a sign of a false messiah, that God meant for the Messiah to be a naturally born king specifically of the blood lineage of David

 

[pinacled]

I agree, "verbatim" was an over statement, I find it more so-to-speak "verbatim" than that of the Masoretic


Also true, both instill the same basic phrase just worded differently, However "recovery of site to the blind" even if you choose to allude it with "opening of prisons to those who are bound" is still a different scenario, the latter being a more watered down version that disagrees with both the LXX and Jesus (and put there by unbelieving Jews via the Masoretic).. Jesus was literally healing the blind, Isaiah says the same thing when you use the original Hebrew Text that Jesus was reading from, which the Septuagint was translated from...
What are the odds that Jesus includes "sight to the blind" and a greek translation of Isaiah written centuries before says that exact phrase?



Could you specify the verbs being used?
I understand your point that they aren't entirely verbatim/identical, we don't have a copy of the original greek translation of Isaiah only the translations from Latin, a few minor words will be lost in translation so I am not disagreeing with that.
In fact Jerome used the proto-Masoretic text for his new vulgate (after studying under Rabbis in Bethlehem) but used the LXX in places where Christians would take notice objectively, so Jerome's translation was a bit of a hybrid, i.e. proto-Masoretic Hebrew text says "a Maiden shall conceive" vs LXX "a Virgin shall conceive" thus our modern OT masoretic bibles says "a Virgin shall conceive"

There are parts of our Christian OT that are taken from the Septuagint version, however the hebrew Tanakh claims the true estate thus for the "Hebrew only" Christians, if that's their authority then the Messiahs miraculous birth was never prophesied.

While we are on the subject of the "Virgin", I have heard numerous Jewish Rabbi apologist make the claim that BECAUSE he was to be born of a young woman and not a virgin than any claims of a miraculous virgin birth is a sign of a false messiah, that God meant for the Messiah to be a naturally born king specifically of the blood lineage of David

Yeshayahu 61
א רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ.1

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

Isaiah 61 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

The above is from a Masoretic text.
Why are you deflecting instead of admitting your fault?

Masorah - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Andrew]

"Blessed are the meek....."
יַעַן מָשַׁח
Sight

Yeshayahu 61
א רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ.1

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

Isaiah 61 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

That's another hybrid translation based on the modern Masoretic and the JPS 1917 translation of the Tanakh and re-translated by a guy named Larry

This is from the Tanakh translated from the Hebrew to English by a Rabbi Rashi

"The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity"

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15992/jewish/Chapter-61.htm

 

[pinacled]

That's another hybrid translation based on the modern Masoretic and the JPS 1917 translation of the Tanakh and re-translated by a guy named Larry

This is from the Tanakh translated from the Hebrew to English by a Rabbi Rashi

"The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity"

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15992/jewish/Chapter-61.htm

I offered the hebrew to english of eyes and sight.

So why are you still focused on strife richard?

 

[pinacled]

While walking in a valley with a strength of forgiveness .
I've found that many pits and snares have been laid by the enemy.
When a pit is found during shabvat.
A good person will offer a hand to water and lift a suffering soul.
If denied they will gently pass by.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

That's another hybrid translation based on the modern Masoretic and the JPS 1917 translation of the Tanakh and re-translated by a guy named Larry

This is from the Tanakh translated from the Hebrew to English by a Rabbi Rashi

"The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity"

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15992/jewish/Chapter-61.htm

What elements were used by The Lord to restore the sight of the blind?

 

[Andrew]

Where does the Bible state that?

It's implied.
Paul was born in Turkey in the very heart of Greek thought and philosophy, Turkey at the time was at THE center of Hellenist culture and influence (Hella - Greek/Greece), he speaks in a heavy political/commercial greek manner and uses greek terminology when addressing his audience, has extremely high knowledge of greek poetry and beliefs (for a non-secular Hebrew).. even when he asked to speak to a multitude of angry Jews the Chief asked him "aren't you that Egyptian?" which may be a reference to Alexandria, Egypt where the Greek influence began. The chief asked "don't you speak Greek"?

Paul is then given license to speak to the Jews in Hebrew. They listen to his speech with open ears as they hear him speaking the Hebrew tongue.. he explains where he was born and where he was sent to at a young age to study Hebrew and Law under Gamaliel (who taught in Jerusalem).... So Paul who is a Jew, a Roman citizen and soldier, raised in a heavily Hellenized jurisdiction, spoke Greek, well studied in greek philosophy/poetry and then studied Hebrew Law in Jerusalem at Hebrew academy (btw the Temple priest in Jerusalem required Hebrew, Jerusalem was Hebrew orthodoxy, not under Greek control since the Maccabean revolt and rededication of the Temple) ....aaaaaannd he was a Christian an Apostle of Christ..

Greek was beyond a doubt the most likely first language of Apostle Paul before moving to Jerusalem and learning Hebrew dialect at a young age

For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him. And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Acts 21:36 - 22:3

 

[pinacled]

It's implied.
Paul was born in Turkey in the very heart of Greek thought and philosophy, Turkey at the time was at THE center of Hellenist culture and influence (Hella - Greek/Greece), he speaks with a heavy political/commercial manner of greek terminology when addressing an audience, has extremely high knowledge of greek poetry and beliefs (for a non-secular Hebrew).. even when he asked to speak to a multitude of angry Jews the Chief asked him "aren't you that Egyptian?" which may be reference to Alexandria Egypt where the Greek influence began. The chief asked "don't you speak Greek"?

Paul is then given license to speak to the Jews in Hebrew. They listen to his speech with open ears as they hear him speaking the Hebrew tongue.. he explains where he was born and where he was sent to at a young age to study Hebrew and Law under Gamaliel (who taught in Jerusalem).... So Paul who is a Jew, a Roman citizen and soldier, raised in a heavily Hellenized jurisdiction, spoke Greek, well studied in greek philosophy/poetry and then studied Hebrew Law in Jerusalem at Hebrew academy (btw the Temple priest in Jerusalem required Hebrew, Jerusalem was Hebrew orthodoxy, not under Greek control since the Maccabean revolt and rededication of the Temple) ....aaaaaannd he was a Christian an Apostle of Christ..

Greek was beyond a doubt the most likely first language of Apostle Paul before moving to Jerusalem and learning Hebrew dialect at a young age

For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him. And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Acts 21:36 - 22:3

Alexa,
Repeat scripture about blind healed

 

[Andrew]

Alexa,
Repeat scripture about blind healed

Jesus spat on dirt and mad mud and put it on the eyes of the blind man?

That mans parents btw were sore afraid of being thrown out of the synagogues for being believers that they darted around the question when asked how their son was healed.

 

[Andrew]

I offered the hebrew to english of eyes and sight.

So why are you still focused on strife richard?

look up the verse in your physical bible and tell me if "sight" is even mentioned

 

[pinacled]

look up the verse in your physical bible and tell me if "sight" is even mentioned

יַעַן מָשַׁח
Sight

 

[pinacled]

Jesus spat on dirt and mad mud and put it on the eyes of the blind man?

That mans parents btw were sore afraid of being thrown out of the synagogues for being believers that they darted around the question when asked how their son was healed.

On earth as it is in heaven"

 

[Origen]

There is much that need to be unpacked in your post. It is too much for me to address all at once, so I would like to break it down more manageable bits.

Could you specify the verbs being used?

Sorry but I am not sure to which verbs you are referring.

we don't have a copy of the original greek translation of Isaiah only the translations from Latin

I am not sure where you are getting that idea about the Latin but we have copies of Isaiah in Greek. However, the fact is we have no original manuscripts of any O.T. book in Greek or Hebrew nor do we have any original manuscripts of any New Testament book.

a few minor words will be lost in translation so I am not disagreeing with that

In the example of Isaiah 61:1-2 it is not the case that some words are lost in translation. As I pointed out this phrase ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει is not part of 61:1but comes from Isaiah 58:6. Thus it is added to the text. Also the verb was changed from
from καλέω (Isaiah 61:2) to κηρύσσω (Luke 4:19).

In fact Jerome used the proto-Masoretic text for his new vulgate (after studying under Rabbis in Bethlehem) but used the LXX in places where Christians would take notice objectively

Could you provide me with a citation from Jerome himself saying he did it for the reason you give?

As for the Hebrew word "almah" I agree with Dr. Michael Heiser. I think the semantic range of "almah" can\does include the idea of virginity. Dr. Heiser points out:

"For the assertion that “almah cannot mean virgin” to be correct, naʿar and betulah must never overlap with almah. But they do. In Genesis 24, Rebekah is referred to with all three terms (naʿar in 24:14, betulah in 24:16, and almah in 24:43), indicating that the terms could certainly be construed as synonymous."

Therefore I would say that the LXX translators saw "almah" understood it to mean virgin and translated it παρθένος (i.e. parthenos = virgin).

There are parts of our Christian OT that are taken from the Septuagint version, however the hebrew Tanakh claims the true estate thus for the "Hebrew only" Christians, if that's their authority then the Messiahs miraculous birth was never prophesied.

I mean no offense but I have no interest in that type of thing. I only care about the text and what the objective evidence shows. The fact is we know that in the case of Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 it was not changes. The Great Isaiah Scroll was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and is dated to ca. 200 B.C. In Isaiah 7:14 the Great Isaiah Scroll reads “almah." That reading predates (by ca. 300 years) the claim someone much have changed the Hebrew text to cover up the fact of the virgin birth.

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

While we are on the subject of the "Virgin", I have heard numerous Jewish Rabbi apologist make the claim that BECAUSE he was to be born of a young woman and not a virgin than any claims of a miraculous virgin birth is a sign of a false messiah, that God meant for the Messiah to be a naturally born king specifically of the blood lineage of David

I too have heard many different kinds of explanations for any number of topics, sometimes bizarre, odd, crazy, weird things. Again all I care about is the text and the objective evidence and what it shows. Also keep in mind that most rabbis like most pastors are not scholars, experts, academics. Sure they know Hebrew but that does make them experts on textual criticism, the transmission of the text, translation methodology, Septuagint studies, Greek, etc.

By the way, I would prefer to stay on one topic at a time. It is just easier that way. I'll be back later. Thank you for your time.

 

[Josiah]

It's implied.

The Bible never REMOTELY says that Paul did not know Hebrew OR that he ever went anywhere at anytime to learn it. Now, you wrote a lot - but not one word from the Bible because there's not one word in the Bible that states what you do or remotely implies it.

Andrew said:


Considering that the NT aligns more with the Greek as far as quotations go

The NT was written in Greek. There was a claim that it was first written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic but nothing has been presented to prove that; we have no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the NT dating from before we have Greek ones. The recent "Aramaic Theory" of a tiny few has been repudiated, as well as simply having zero historic evidence; the sole purpose of this wild theory is so they can use some mysterious, invisible unknown as their norm instead of what actually exists.

Andrew said:


, why would you bypass the greek translation and settle for a Hebrew translation

I don't. I use a translation because I don't know Greek or Hebrew. Do you?

Again, there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of translations of the Bible. All done because there were lay readers who could not easily read Hebrew or Greek but wanted to read the text in a translation they could understand. But no publishing house speak officially, definitively and authoritatively for the church catholic as to what is and is not canonical. Publishing houses publish books (hopefully, that will sell). That's it. That's all. Nothing can be made of this.


It is likely some "church fathers" used translations. This likely because some could not read Hebrew. How does that prove that someone thus officially, formally, ecumenically and authoritatively declared what Books are and are not canonical?




.

 

[pinacled]

The Bible never REMOTELY says that Paul did not know Hebrew OR that he ever went anywhere at anytime to learn it. Now, you wrote a lot - but not one word from the Bible because there's not one word in the Bible that states what you do or remotely implies it.








The NT was written in Greek. There was a claim that it was first written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic but nothing has been presented to prove that; we have no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the NT dating from before we have Greek ones. The recent "Aramaic Theory" of a tiny few has been repudiated, as well as simply having zero historic evidence; the sole purpose of this wild theory is so they can use some mysterious, invisible unknown as their norm instead of what actually exists.






I don't. I use a translation because I don't know Greek or Hebrew. Do you?

Again, there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of translations of the Bible. All done because there were lay readers who could not easily read Hebrew or Greek but wanted to read the text in a translation they could understand. But no publishing house speak officially, definitively and authoritatively for the church catholic as to what is and is not canonical. Publishing houses publish books (hopefully, that will sell). That's it. That's all. Nothing can be made of this.


It is likely some "church fathers" used translations. This likely because some could not read Hebrew. How does that prove that someone thus officially, formally, ecumenically and authoritatively declared what Books are and are not canonical?




.

Andrews premise in the op is based solely on English translations.

Origen and myself have shown evidence of scripture from both greek and hebrew that refutes such a premise.

If Andrew were to retract.
Then perhaps a discussion in fellowship would ensue.

I find it strange that this thread wasn't moved to the speculation sub-forum

 

[Andrew]

Andrews premise in the op is based solely on English translations.

Origen and myself have shown evidence of scripture from both greek and hebrew that refutes such a premise.

If Andrew were to retract.
Then perhaps a discussion in fellowship would ensue.

I find it strange that this thread wasn't moved to the speculation sub-forum

Why would it be moved there? Paul spoke Greek and Hebrew, I never said he didnt

 

[pinacled]

Why would it be moved there? Paul spoke Greek and Hebrew, I never said he didnt

The why is discretionarily decided by a moderator.

With wisdom if need be.

Blessings Always