Early Christian writings along with the NT...

[pinacled]

Hmmm,
Almond butter.
Pomegranate jelly.
Wheat bread.
Sun flower oil and butter.
Hummm
Wrapped and baked.

 

[Andrew]

Hmmm,
Almond butter.
Pomegranate jelly.
Wheat bread.
Sun flower oil and butter.
Hummm
Wrapped and baked.

What are we making?

 

[Arsenios]

I mean no offense but I have no interest in that type of thing (eg the virgin birth).

No offense at all, but no Christian Faith either...

I only care about the text and what the objective evidence shows.

May your efforts be blessed...

The fact is we know that in the case of Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 it was not changed.

Generally speaking, it is not even the text that is so much in question, but its meaning...
Illustrated by issues of back-translating the LXX of the BC Jews...

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 must have changed the Hebrew text to cover up the fact of the virgin birth.

Do the Jews affirm the historical Virgin Birth of Christ?

Perhaps a good way to approach might be to to affirm both understandings in this instance, which you seem to do, on the grounds that young women give birth regularly, so such a birth would not function as a Sign from God... But if you back translate the Greek into Hebrew, you will mistranslate - You will not come up with 'almah' from παρθένος... And likewise you will not come up with παρθένος from 'almah'... And yet THAT is exactly what the Greek speaking and Greek writing Jewish translators did do... To try to cover this discrepancy under the umbrella of 'semantic range overlaps' overlooks the plain differences in the terms...

Holy Tradition names the LXX Translator who tried to translate almah as 'young girl'... His name was Simeon... He tried arguing with God through the Angel sent to correct him... He lost that argument... Perhaps you remember the text "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace..."

You see, "text alone" will not resolve these issues, because it is the actual meaning of the texts that is in question, because the Jews and the Christians have very differing understandings of the same body of words in the two languages, Greek and Masoretic Hebrew...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

I mean no offense but I have no interest in that type of thing (eg the virgin birth).

No offense at all, but no Christian Faith either...

I only care about the text and what the objective evidence shows.

May your efforts be blessed...

The fact is we know that in the case of Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 it was not changed.

Generally speaking, it is not even the text that is so much in question, but its meaning...
Illustrated by issues of back-translating the LXX of the BC Jews...

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 must have changed the Hebrew text to cover up the fact of the virgin birth.

Do the Jews affirm the historical Virgin Birth of Christ?

Perhaps a good way to approach might be to to affirm both understandings in this instance, which you seem to do, on the grounds that young women give birth regularly, so such a birth would not function as a Sign from God... But if you back translate the Greek into Hebrew, you will mistranslate - You will not come up with 'almah' from παρθένος... And likewise you will not come up with παρθένος from 'almah'... And yet THAT is exactly what the Greek speaking and Greek writing Jewish translators did do... To try to cover this discrepancy under the umbrella of 'semantic range overlaps' overlooks the plain differences in the terms...

Holy Tradition names the Translator who tried to translate almah as 'young girl'... His name was Simeon... He tried arguing with God through the Angel sent to correct him... He lost that argument... Perhaps you remember the text "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace..."

You see, "text alone" will not resolve these issues, because it is the actual meaning of the texts that is in question, because the Jews and the Christians have very differing understandings of the same body of words in the two languages, Greek and Masoretic Hebrew...

A.

Otherwise there would be an Egyptian bible

There is one... Written in Coptic... Coptic is the Egyptian Language Bible, only to be read and heard in Church...

btw - The Oriental Orthodox Churches all regard the LXX as Canonical...

 

[Arsenios]

Ethiopian orthodox is fiction.

They kept the Orthodox Faith isolated from the rest of the world for a thousand years...

A.

 

[Origen]

No offense at all, but no Christian Faith either...

There was no "e.g. virgin birth" in my post. That is not what I said. You misunderstood me. I was referencing something else entirely. I wholly affirm the virgin birth.

Generally speaking, it is not even the text that is so much in question, but its meaning...
Illustrated by issues of back-translating the LXX of the BC Jews...

First, one must begin with the text itself, both the Hebrew and the Greek. Second, there are no LXX manuscripts that predate the 3rd century A.D. Third, the only copies we have of the LXX are Christian not Jewish.

Do the Jews affirm the historical Virgin Birth of Christ?

I really does not matter to me what they do or do not affirm. I only care about the objective evidence concerning the text and what it shows.

Perhaps a good way to approach might be to to affirm both understandings in this instance, which you seem to do, on the grounds that young women give birth regularly, so such a birth would not function as a Sign from God

I never suggested that. Again, you have misunderstood me.

But if you back translate the Greek into Hebrew, you will mistranslate - You will not come up with 'almah' from παρθένος... And likewise you will not come up with παρθένος from 'almah'...

There are a number of Hebrew and Greek scholars that would not necessarily agree with that claim. Nevertheless my point concerned the changing of the text. The fact is 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 must have changed the Hebrew text to cover up the fact of the virgin birth. That is hard evidence not speculative theory.

And yet THAT is exactly what the Greek speaking and Greek writing Jewish translators did do... To try to cover this discrepancy under the umbrella of 'semantic range overlaps' overlooks the plain differences in the terms...

Again, there are no LXX manuscripts that predate the 3rd century A.D. The only copies we have of the LXX are Christian not Jewish. Thus you have no physical evidence. We do have a few small fragments but that is it. Nothing that could in any way help textually.

You see, "text alone" will not resolve these issues, because it is the actual meaning of the texts that is in question, because the Jews and the Christians have very differing understandings of the same body of words in the two languages, Greek and Masoretic Hebrew...

I see no objective reason to accept such a claim nor do I believe it.

If you know of ANY Septuagint manuscripts that are prior to 3rd century A.D. (and not Christian), then I would be happy to look at them.
Thank you for your time.

 

[pinacled]

There was no "e.g. virgin birth" in my post. That is not what I said. You misunderstood me. I was referencing something else entirely. I wholly affirm the virgin birth.


First, one must begin with the text itself, both Hebrew and Greek. Second, there are no LXX manuscripts that predate A.D. 350. Third, the only copies we have of the LXX are Christian not Jewish.


I really does not matter to me what they do or do not affirm. I only care about the objective evidence concerning the text and what it shows.


I never suggested that. Again, you have misunderstood me.


There are a number of Hebrew and Greek scholars that would not necessarily agree with that claim. Nevertheless my point concerned the changing of the text. The fact is 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 must have changed the Hebrew text to cover up the fact of the virgin birth. That is hard evidence not speculative theory.


Again, there are no LXX manuscripts that predate A.D. 350. The only copies we have of the LXX are Christian not Jewish. Thus you have no physical evidence.


I see no objective reason to accept such a claim nor do I believe it.

If you know of ANY Septuagint manuscript that are prior to A.D. 350 (and not Christian), then I would be happy to look at them.
Thank you for your time.

I thankyou for the clarity offered in your post.

 

[Origen]

I thank you for the clarity offered in your post.

Thank you Sir.

 

[pinacled]

You have a lot to learn andew

 

[Andrew]

You have a lot to learn andew

It's not easy translating from another language, it will never be identical.. but when you compare the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, NT quotes, etc together, they equally disagree with much of the Masoretic. The Masoretic being the most inaccurate. To be fair the earliest LXX that we know of was a mixture of three Septuagint versions around that time, the Dead sea scrolls also had duplicates that differed.. Jerome took the a Latin translation of the Greek translation composed of three separate translations of the original Hebrew and then interbred them with the proto-masoretic, making a hybrid, then when the Masoretic came on the scene they once again swapped words and phrases here and there... So just so everyone knows, our Masoretic differs from the Hebrew Masoretic, even though the majority here despise the Septuagint they are still reading parts of it in the OT that differ from what the Hebrews have.
The Hebrew to English Tanakh strays even further from the Masoretic we use, a Jewish friend told me that Jesus is not the Messiah because there will be two that sit on the thrones in the last days... The lone builder of the Temple and the High Priest.
Yet my bible makes it clear that don't sit on separate thrones as two men counseling together to bring peace, my masoretic says the high priest is at the right hand of He who sits on the same throne, as one.
That is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb who ARE the temple of it.

So in the Hebrew world OUR Masoretic is alien to them and likewise they say ours is corrupt.

From my research and by the process of elimination, I honestly find the LXX as the closest we will get to the original OT, after Jerome decided he was going to be the hero and "fix" the translations back to the original we have had an ever ending growth of marginal notes, commentary, edits, the Holy King James Bible of 1611 is now "not completely Holy" because it contained unHoly books..

Still trying to figure out how "opening of the prisons" and "recovery of sight" is a word for word translation?
Is the word "Prison" in Hebrew have the same meaning as "Sight" in Greek? I mean how hard is it to translate the phrase correctly? Apparently Jesus had no issue with it, only the Masoretic does, the Greek doesn't, only the Masoretic does... I think I will side with Jesus and the early Christians on this one

 

[pinacled]

It's not easy translating from another language, it will never be identical.. but when you compare the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, NT quotes, etc together, they equally disagree with much of the Masoretic. The Masoretic being the most inaccurate. To be fair the earliest LXX that we know of was a mixture of three Septuagint versions around that time, the Dead sea scrolls also had duplicates that differed.. Jerome took the a Latin translation of the Greek translation composed of three separate translations of the original Hebrew and then interbred them with the proto-masoretic, making a hybrid, then when the Masoretic came on the scene they once again swapped words and phrases here and there... So just so everyone knows, our Masoretic differs from the Hebrew Masoretic, even though the majority here despise the Septuagint they are still reading parts of it in the OT that differ from what the Hebrews have.
The Hebrew to English Tanakh strays even further from the Masoretic we use, a Jewish friend told me that Jesus is not the Messiah because there will be two that sit on the thrones in the last days... The lone builder of the Temple and the High Priest.
Yet my bible makes it clear that don't sit on separate thrones as two men counseling together to bring peace, my masoretic says the high priest is at the right hand of He who sits on the same throne, as one.
That is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb who ARE the temple of it.

So in the Hebrew world OUR Masoretic is alien to them and likewise they say ours is corrupt.

From my research and by the process of elimination, I honestly find the LXX as the closest we will get to the original OT, after Jerome decided he was going to be the hero and "fix" the translations back to the original we have had an ever ending growth of marginal notes, commentary, edits, the Holy King James Bible of 1611 is now "not completely Holy" because it contained unHoly books..

Still trying to figure out how "opening of the prisons" and "recovery of sight" is a word for word translation?
Is the word "Prison" in Hebrew have the same meaning as "Sight" in Greek? I mean how hard is it to translate the phrase correctly? Apparently Jesus had no issue with it, only the Masoretic does, the Greek doesn't, only the Masoretic does... I think I will side with Jesus and the early Christians on this one

Seems like you have a bias against the masorah and hebrew culture.
Deuteronomy 10
Romans 2:11
James 2

 

[Andrew]

Seems like you have a bias against the masorah and hebrew culture.
Deuteronomy 10
Romans 2:11
James 2

Seems like early Christians and Eastern Orthodox do as well because they used greek translations (unless those greeks were fluent in Hebrew)..

 

[pinacled]

Seems like early Christians and Eastern Orthodox do as well because they used greek translations (unless those greeks were fluent in Hebrew)..

Romans 1:16
Galatians 3:28

 

[Andrew]

Romans 1:16
Galatians 3:28

The Jews have created a stumbling block unto themselves by censoring and altering their books to discredit their Messiah.
I am not against the Jews, if anything I encourage them to interpret from the older copy albeit the Greek translation rather than the far recent Hebrew Masoretic, where the prophetic verses are broad and obscure allowing them wiggle room for the Rabbis to "prove" to their fellow Jews how Jesus can not be the messiah (if asked)

Snippets from

Bible Errors - Examining the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

sites.google.com

A Hebrew Bible exists today. It is used by Jews everywhere. It is called the Masoretic text. It was compiled around 700 A.D. It is almost one thousand years newer than the Septuagint. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the High Priest in Jerusalem. There no longer was a High Priest. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. There no longer was a Sanhedrin.

On the Septuagint
There was no controversy about the integrity of the Septuagint from 250 B.C. until 135 A. D.

Around 95 A.D. Rabbi Akiva, who later proclaimed Bar Kochba as the messiah, hired a man named Aquila to translate a Hebrew to Greek version of the Old Testament that would undermine the messianic claims of Jesus found in the Septuagint. Some scholars believe that the Masoretic text was based in part on this tendentious translation by Aquila.

How is the Masoretic text different from the Septuagint?

Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.

Psalm 145: 13 omitted entirely.

Isaiah 53:11 the word “light” is omitted.

Psalm 151 was omitted entirely. (It is now omitted by almost all Christian Bibles!)

Exodus 1: The number 75 replaced by 70

Genesis 10:24 some generations removed.

Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.”

Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the Masoretic.

Psalm 96:10 “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood” omitted.

Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” or in some versions “the city of destruction.”

The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically.

Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted.

In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears.”

Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted.

Genesis 4:8: “Let us go into the field” is omitted.

Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened.

Isaiah 53 contains 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences.

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”

(When Aquila made his Greek translation of the Old Testament at the behest of Rabbi Akiva, he changed the Septuagint’s “virgin” into “young woman”. The Masoretic compilers may have followed his lead.)

The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.

How do we know which text is accurate?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered just after World War II.

According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. There are fragments from all of the books of the Hebrew Bible fragments except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah.

In addition an independent Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible exists, the Peshitta.

Control of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a military objective of Israelis. It was achieved by their victory in the Six Days War.

The publication of the scrolls slowed to a trickle.

After 1971, the international team even refused to allow the publication of photographs of the material. They excluded scholars who wanted to make independent evaluations.

The embargo was not broken until 1991.

An addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can use the Peshitta to decide between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.

I have given examples above of some of the places the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Peshitta, and the Septuagint agree.

The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament


Truth about the Septuagint

Original Hebrew Vs Masoretic

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Andrew]

Romans 1:16
Galatians 3:28

"And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"
Matthew 21:15-16

They were PRAISING Him!!!

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger"
Psalm 8:2 (MT)

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger"
Psalm 8:2 (LXX)

 

[pinacled]

The Jews have created a stumbling block unto themselves by censoring and altering their books to discredit their Messiah.
I am not against the Jews, if anything I encourage them to interpret from the older copy albeit the Greek translation rather than the far recent Hebrew Masoretic, where the prophetic verses are broad and obscure allowing them wiggle room for the Rabbis to "prove" to their fellow Jews how Jesus can not be the messiah (if asked)

Snippets from

Bible Errors - Examining the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

sites.google.com

A Hebrew Bible exists today. It is used by Jews everywhere. It is called the Masoretic text. It was compiled around 700 A.D. It is almost one thousand years newer than the Septuagint. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the High Priest in Jerusalem. There no longer was a High Priest. The rabbis who compiled the Masoretic text were not accountable to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. There no longer was a Sanhedrin.

On the Septuagint
There was no controversy about the integrity of the Septuagint from 250 B.C. until 135 A. D.

Around 95 A.D. Rabbi Akiva, who later proclaimed Bar Kochba as the messiah, hired a man named Aquila to translate a Hebrew to Greek version of the Old Testament that would undermine the messianic claims of Jesus found in the Septuagint. Some scholars believe that the Masoretic text was based in part on this tendentious translation by Aquila.

How is the Masoretic text different from the Septuagint?

Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.

Psalm 145: 13 omitted entirely.

Isaiah 53:11 the word “light” is omitted.

Psalm 151 was omitted entirely. (It is now omitted by almost all Christian Bibles!)

Exodus 1: The number 75 replaced by 70

Genesis 10:24 some generations removed.

Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.”

Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the Masoretic.

Psalm 96:10 “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood” omitted.

Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” or in some versions “the city of destruction.”

The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically.

Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted.

In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears.”

Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted.

Genesis 4:8: “Let us go into the field” is omitted.

Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened.

Isaiah 53 contains 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences.

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”

(When Aquila made his Greek translation of the Old Testament at the behest of Rabbi Akiva, he changed the Septuagint’s “virgin” into “young woman”. The Masoretic compilers may have followed his lead.)

The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.

How do we know which text is accurate?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered just after World War II.

According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. There are fragments from all of the books of the Hebrew Bible fragments except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah.

In addition an independent Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible exists, the Peshitta.

Control of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a military objective of Israelis. It was achieved by their victory in the Six Days War.

The publication of the scrolls slowed to a trickle.

After 1971, the international team even refused to allow the publication of photographs of the material. They excluded scholars who wanted to make independent evaluations.

The embargo was not broken until 1991.

An addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can use the Peshitta to decide between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.

I have given examples above of some of the places the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Peshitta, and the Septuagint agree.

The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament


Truth about the Septuagint

Original Hebrew Vs Masoretic

Iyov/job
11:2
Are you צֹפַר

 

[Andrew]

Iyov/job
11:2
Are you צֹפַר

I don't believe I am "a man of talk" just because I refuse to believe that Jesus constantly misquotes the OT.

It makes no sense at all how our NT quotes of the OT scripture match up with the Septuagint while the Masoretic doesn't line up with either of them, yet we shun the Septuagint and praise the Masoretic.
Either Jesus misquotes OT or the Masoretic is an altered Hebrew.

However, if you wish to leave the conversation then please do, you call me all talk and hint that I am anti-semitic why?
because I actually reach out to Jews on Jewish forums who quote the Masoretic to disprove Jesus? and then when I refute it with the Septuagint quotes they turn around and say the that the Christians altered the Septuagint to match up with the NT because the NT was poorly written by non hebrews in a cult frenzy, do you have any idea how many Christians have left the Church due to Rabbi Tovia Singers "Outreach Judaism"?

19 minutes in

 

[Origen]

Snippets from

Bible Errors - Examining the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

sites.google.com

Every one should be aware that site you posted is anti-Bible\anti-Christian?

On the Home Page it states:

"The statement above is typically what every Christian believe. However, a careful study of the Bible proves that it is full of errors, ranging from scientific, historical, arithmetical, genealogical, contradictory statements, failed prophesies, etc.
The various evidences to support this are:

1. Wrong scientific, historic or arithmetic statements in the Bible.
2. Differences between different versions of the Bible.
3. Irreconcilable and contradictory statements in each of the Bible versions.

My intention is to discuss these errors in this website for those with the ability to think to take heed."

(1) Note the very condescending attitude in bold above towards anyone who believes the Bible (regardless of which translation you use). If you are one who does not agree that the Bible is filled with scientific, historical, and mathematical errors, then you are one who does not have the ability to think according to the author.

(3) Moreover it cite no scholarly sources supporting the author's claims nor any mean. It does cite certain English translations of Greek and Hebrew texts but those can very misleading when compared to each other. Lining up two English translations side by side cannot tell us specifically which Greek or Hebrew words are in the text.

(4) The author makes some errors of his own.

(5) If you go to the very bottom of the page you will see the name Charles D. Provan (one time Holocaust denier). It claims he is Biblical scholar. He is not.

According to wiki: "He attended Bob Jones University for a few years and then transferred to the University of Pittsburgh to study history, although he never graduated."

Charles D. Provan - Wikipedia

First, Bob Jones University was not granted accreditation until 2017, that is ten years after Provan death. Second, he never graduated from Bob Jones University or the University of Pittsburgh. Third, it states he studied history. That by definition is the opposite of being a Biblical scholar.

 

[Andrew]

Every one should be aware that site you posted is anti-Bible\anti-Christian?

On the Home Page it states:

"The statement above is typically what every Christian believe. However, a careful study of the Bible proves that it is full of errors, ranging from scientific, historical, arithmetical, genealogical, contradictory statements, failed prophesies, etc.
The various evidences to support this are:

1. Wrong scientific, historic or arithmetic statements in the Bible.
2. Differences between different versions of the Bible.
3. Irreconcilable and contradictory statements in each of the Bible versions.

My intention is to discuss these errors in this website for those with the ability to think to take heed."

(1) Note the very condescending attitude in bold above towards anyone who believes the Bible (regardless of which translation you use). If you are one who does not agree that the Bible is filled with scientific, historical, and mathematical errors, then you are one who does not have the ability to think according to the author.

(3) Moreover it cite no scholarly sources supporting the author's claims nor any mean. It does cite certain English translations of Greek and Hebrew texts but those can very misleading when compared to each other. Lining up two English translations side by side cannot tell us specifically which Greek or Hebrew words are in the text.

(4) The author makes some errors of his own.

(5) If you go to the very bottom of the page you will see the name Charles D. Provan (one time Holocaust denier). It claims he is Biblical scholar. He is not.

According to wiki: "He attended Bob Jones University for a few years and then transferred to the University of Pittsburgh to study history, although he never graduated."

Charles D. Provan - Wikipedia

First, Bob Jones University was not granted accreditation until 2017, that is ten years after Provan death. Second, he never graduated from Bob Jones University or the University of Pittsburgh. Third, it states he studied history. That by definition is the opposite of being a Biblical scholar.

I apologise, however the talmud documents confirm the translation of Aquila and the Rabbi who ordained the translation along with the reason why. You can find it on a site called "Sacred Text" -Judaism, it's in the history section of the Talmud.
The list of differences between the MT and the LXX can be confirmed with a simple comparison of the Septuagint text with the Masoretic text.