What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does the say young maiden or virgin in Isaiah?
What does Jerome say on the matter? Your claim concerned Jerome's text. Since Jerome wouldn't know what a Masoretic text was, your point is irrelevant.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What does Jerome say on the matter? Your claim concerned Jerome's text. Since Jerome wouldn't know what a Masoretic text was, your point is irrelevant.
Proto-Masoretic
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
What does Jerome say on the matter? Your claim concerned Jerome's text. Since Jerome wouldn't know what a Masoretic text was, your point is irrelevant.

Jerome translated it as virgin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
The author of Hebrews quoted from the Septuagint (LXX) when quoting Scripture. That’s why the translation from the Hebrew differs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
The author of Hebrews quoted from the Septuagint (LXX) when quoting Scripture. That’s why the translation from the Hebrew differs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. He might have been quoting from an older copy of the Hebrew.

Some early church fathers said that Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and then translated into Greek later on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
He wouldn't know what a Proto-Masoretic text was either. He had no conception of text types.
You are impossible, did I ever even claim that Jerome knew the text group by any other name besides Hebrew? No.

Jerome went to unbelievers who told him what they considered scripture, which BTW of course does not even include the gospels!

Look if you really trust Jerome's ignorance that the Jewish canon ended 400 years before Christ then by all means cut off the NT while you are at it because obviously you believe that Christ rejecting Jews have authority over Christianity, THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS BELONG TO CHRISTIANS NOT JEWS!

They condemned their Lord to a humiliating death, true Israel became CHRISTIANS.

The Jews today are not Gods people, not today nor in Jerome's day.

An unbelieving Jew is equal to an unbelieving Gentile. Jerome was a heretic for siding with unbelievers against the traditional Holy scriptures of the Church.

Indeed the Gospel is the supreme authority, but again, the OT belongs to Christians and has been used since the advent of the Church to witness to unbelieving Jews in hopes that they accept Christ.

Read Wisdom Chapter 2 and try to convince yourself that it's not inspired. A prophecy is a prophecy is a prophecy
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Not necessarily. He might have been quoting from an older copy of the Hebrew.

Some early church fathers said that Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and then translated into Greek later on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Jewish people lost their Hebrew tongue while in captivity in Babylon. If the Book of Hebrews was written in Hebrew it would have to have been a person from the tribe of Levi, the Scribes who alone retained their Hebrew tongue.

If you check the quotes from Hebrews with the Septuagint you will see they are verbatim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You are impossible, did I ever even claim that Jerome knew the text group by any other name besides Hebrew?
I never said you did. I was merely pointing out your vocabulary can be misleading.

Jerome went to unbelievers who told him what they considered scripture, which BTW of course does not even include the gospels!
Alas, poor poor Jerome was just too stupid to know any better. How sad! That is if you could provide primary sources to support your claims.

Look if you really trust Jerome's ignorance
Jerome knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

If what you claim were true, it causes me to wonder why the Church DID NOT reject Jerome, his translation, and his writings. No where does the church condemn Jerome as a heretic nor were his writings and translation rejected. Following your line of thinking the WHOLE church was also just too stupid to know any better and followed Jerome. Not one person knew better or said anything. Your argument makes no sense and has zero historical support.

Look if you really trust Jerome's ignorance that the Jewish canon ended 400 years before Christ then by all means cut off the NT while you are at it because obviously you believe that Christ rejecting Jews have authority over Christianity, THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS BELONG TO CHRISTIANS NOT JEWS!
We were NOT discussing the canon. Let me remind you.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text (not the canon).
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

Again this is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject in order to divert attention away from the fact you do not have objective evidence for your claim concerning Jerome's text.

The Jews today are not Gods people, not today nor in Jerome's day.
Totally irrelevant to your claim.

An unbelieving Jew is equal to an unbelieving Gentile. Jerome was a heretic for siding with unbelievers against the traditional Holy scriptures of the Church.
Irrelevant to your claim.

Indeed the Gospel is the supreme authority, but again, the OT belongs to Christians and has been used since the advent of the Church to witness to unbelieving Jews in hopes that they accept Christ.
Irrelevant to your claim.

Read Wisdom Chapter 2 and try to convince yourself that it's not inspired. A prophecy is a prophecy is a prophecy
Irrelevant to your claim.


Either you have the evidence or you don't.
 
Last edited:

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
The Jewish people lost their Hebrew tongue while in captivity in Babylon. If the Book of Hebrews was written in Hebrew it would have to have been a person from the tribe of Levi, the Scribes who alone retained their Hebrew tongue.

If you check the quotes from Hebrews with the Septuagint you will see they are verbatim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Acts 22 says that Paul addressed a crowd in Hebrew, and they understood him. Paul was of Benjamin, not Levi.

My theory as to why the book of Hebrews sides with the Septuagint is because the author was quoting the original, accurate Hebrew, and the Greek Septuagint reflects that original accurate Hebrew.

But I believe today’s Hebrew Masoretic text has been heavily altered. That’s why New Testament quotations disagree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I never said you did. I was merely pointing out your vocabulary can be misleading.


Alas, poor poor Jerome was just too stupid to know any better. How sad! That is if you could provide primary sources to support your claims.


Jerome knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

If what you claim were true, it cause me to wonder why the Church DID NOT reject Jerome, his translation, and his writings. No where does the church condemn Jerome as a heretic nor were his writings and translation rejected. Following your line of thinking the WHOLE church was also just too stupid to know any better and followed Jerome. Not one person knew better. Your argument makes no sense and has zero historical support.


We were NOT discussing the canon. Let me remind you.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text (not the canon).
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

Again this is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject in order to divert attention away from the fact you do not have objective evidence for your claim concerning Jerome's text.


Totally irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Either you have the evidence or you don't.
Jerome kept in "Virgin" for one.. he also created three separate Psalters

"Regarding the Psalms, Jerome made three versions: the Roman Psalter, a mild revision of the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint, used in the Roman liturgy until c.1570; the Gallican Psalter, a revision of the Old Latin to parallel it with the Hebrew Masoretic text; and the later Hebrew Psalter, a new translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Texts of the Vulgate now contain the Gallican Psalter"
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I never said you did. I was merely pointing out your vocabulary can be misleading.


Alas, poor poor Jerome was just too stupid to know any better. How sad! That is if you could provide primary sources to support your claims.


Jerome knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

If what you claim were true, it causes me to wonder why the Church DID NOT reject Jerome, his translation, and his writings. No where does the church condemn Jerome as a heretic nor were his writings and translation rejected. Following your line of thinking the WHOLE church was also just too stupid to know any better and followed Jerome. Not one person knew better or said anything. Your argument makes no sense and has zero historical support.


We were NOT discussing the canon. Let me remind you.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text (not the canon).
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

Again this is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject in order to divert attention away from the fact you do not have objective evidence for your claim concerning Jerome's text.


Totally irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Irrelevant to your claim.


Either you have the evidence or you don't.

Dude, you really need to listen to David Bercot’s audio teaching on the Septuagint.

Bercot has read the whole entire volume of the ante-Nicene fathers. When Jerome’s translation was first published, the vast majority of Christians around the world just flat out rejected it. Jerome received criticism all over the world for his Latin translation. Mainly because they were used to the Septuagint, but Jerome was deviating from the Septuagint. If it wasn’t for the Catholic Popes endorsing his translation, then Jerome’s translation would have been dead on arrival.

And if you want primary sources for this, then you’ll have to ask David Bercot. Listen to his audio teaching and do your best to debunk it.


“Why Don’t We Use the Same Bible aa the Apostles?”
By David Bercot.
Part 1:
Part 2:
 
Last edited:

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jerome kept in "Virgin" for one.. he also created three separate Psalters
Yes, he did use the word "virgin." Can you provide any objective evidence as to why?

"Regarding the Psalms, Jerome made three versions: the Roman Psalter, a mild revision of the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint, used in the Roman liturgy until c.1570; the Gallican Psalter, a revision of the Old Latin to parallel it with the Hebrew Masoretic text; and the later Hebrew Psalter, a new translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Texts of the Vulgate now contain the Gallican Psalter"
Yes he did. The point being that he made a separate translation of the Hebrew text. Your source proves my point. It states Jerome made "a new translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text."
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes, he did use the word "virgin." Can you provide any objective evidence as to why?


Yes he did. The point being that he made a separate translation of the Hebrew text. Your source proves my point. It states Jerome made "a new translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text."
Yeah, his second one included both and it was written in Bethlehem, the third he finally bowed down to the Rabbis, this is why the Church kept the 1rst and 2nd Psalter for so long, and which is why now the psalms in the Masoretic are so different from the NT quotes because its from the 3rd translation of psalms.

Here is Jerome kind of being a jerk having an attitude because the Church at the time did not like the Hebrew psalms (the 3rd)

"Therefore, because recently, when disputing with a Hebrew, you produced certain testimonies about the Lord Savior from the Psalms, and he, wishing to outmaneuver you,6 asserted throughout nearly every one of the words that it is not found thus in Hebrew, so that you were opposed to the Seventy interpreters, you most zealously demanded that, after Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, I translated a new edition in the Latin language. For you said yourself to be greatly confused by the variety of interpreters, and that you are inclined by love7 to be content with either my translation or my judgment. For this reason, having been compelled by you, to whom I am unable to deny even those things I cannot do, I again handed myself over to the barkings of detractors, and I preferred you to question my strengths rather than my willingness in friendship. Certainly I will speak confidently and I will cite many witnesses of this work, knowing myself in this matter to have changed nothing of the truth of the Hebrew. Therefore, wherever my edition has differed from the old ones, ask any of the Hebrews, and you will clearly see me to be torn in pieces by those striving after error, who “prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn,”8 most perverse men. For when they always desire new delicacies, and their gullets, like the seas, do not suffice, why in only study of the Scriptures are they content with an old flavor? I do not say this so that I might bite my predecessors, nor have I considered slandering any translation of those which I very diligently corrected, (and) formerly gave to men of my language; but that it is one thing to read the Psalms in the churches of those believing in Christ, another thing to answer the Jews who accuse every word.

But if, as you proffer, you will have translated my little work into Greek, Opposing the Ridiculers,9 and you will have made the most learned men witnesses to my ignorance, I will say to you that (saying) of Horace, “You do not carry wood into a forest.”10 Except that I have this solace, if in the common work I know both praise and slander to be common to me and you.

I desire you to be well in the Lord Jesus, and to remember me"



...
Well there you go, Unbelieving Jews are right, Christians are wrong, even Jesus who quoted Psalms was wrong according to the Jews and according to Jerome obviously, if he hadn't had trusted them he wouldn't have created the 3rd Hebrew psalter
 
Last edited:

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
When Jerome’s translation was first published, the vast majority of Christians around the world just flat out rejected it. Jerome received criticism all over the world for his Latin translation. Mainly because they were used to the Septuagint, but Jerome was deviating from the Septuagint.
Really? Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? I sincerely doubt he has such knowledge.

However if you provide the evidence Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed on this topic I will being more than willing to look at it.
 
Last edited:

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acts 22 says that Paul addressed a crowd in Hebrew, and they understood him. Paul was of Benjamin, not Levi.

My theory as to why the book of Hebrews sides with the Septuagint is because the author was quoting the original, accurate Hebrew, and the Greek Septuagint reflects that original accurate Hebrew.

But I believe today’s Hebrew Masoretic text has been heavily altered. That’s why New Testament quotations disagree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew yes. He was an educated Jew , one who studied under Gamaliel In other words he attended Yeshiva the equivalent to a Hebrew seminary.
Most Jews were not educated as Paul was. He called himself a Pharisee of Pharisees
The tribe of Benjamin was the original royal line So Paul could consider his lineage as royalty.

Most Israelites knew Aramaic, which is probably the language Paul used in communicating with the Jews. Aramaic is the language of Babylon.

Your theory is one held by a lot of scholars. One professor said that the vocabulary of Hebrews doesn’t match the language of Paul in the other letters that he wrote, which is the reason they speculate that Paul did not write Hebrews.

I also believe that the Masoretic Text of today is not accurate and that is the reason that the KJV differs from other translations of the Bible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Really? Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? I sincerely doubt he has such knowledge.

However if you provide the evidence Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed on this topic I will being more than willing to look at it.
Bercot studies Early Christianity, you do know that early Christians left us with plenty of reading material. Not just Christian writings but Bercot studies Roman records as well and Historians
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yeah, his second one included both and it was written in Bethlehem, the third he finally bowed down to the Rabbis, this is why the Church kept the 1rst and 2nd Psalter for so long, and which is why now the psalms in the Masoretic are so different from the NT quotes because its from the 3rd translation of psalms.
Empty claims with no evidence. We can examine the Latin text and compare with both the Greek and Hebrew texts and see which one the Latin follows.

Therefore, because recently, when disputing with a Hebrew, you produced certain testimonies about the Lord Savior from the Psalms, and he, wishing to outmaneuver you, asserted throughout nearly every one of the words that it is not found thus in Hebrew, so that you were opposed to the Seventy interpreters, you most zealously demanded that, after Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, I translated a new edition in the Latin language. For you said yourself to be greatly confused by the variety of interpreters, and that you are inclined by love to be content with either my translation or my judgment. For this reason, having been compelled by you, to whom I am unable to deny even those things I cannot do, I again handed myself over to the barkings of detractors, and I preferred you to question my strengths rather than my willingness in friendship.
This Sophronius to whom Jerome writes was out classed by some Hebrew. He wanted Jerome to translate "a new edition in the Latin language." Sound like sour grapes to me.


However Jerome is confident in his translation of the Hebrew text and makes it clear he can support his translation with "many witnesses."
Certainly I will speak confidently and I will cite many witnesses of this work, knowing myself in this matter to have changed nothing of the truth of the Hebrew.
Jerome is merely pointing out he faithfully followed the Hebrew text and change nothing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom