My thoughts on Hebrew vs Greek thinking, what are yours?

[JGIG]

I have a different take on this JGig.

First of all, a translation is not a quote. A quote must be exact to be a quote. If you take a Hebrew sentence and translate it, the translation is not a quote. Now it is possible for a Greek document (like the NT) to quote another Greek document. But I don't think there is any way to establish that the NT quotes the LXX. The reason is that we don't have any LXX manuscript that predates the NT, except for fragments, so far as I know. What we have and what is called the LXX is really not the LXX, but the Greek OT, as attached to great codexes of the NT, no earlier than 4th century AD.

So what would you have done had you been a Christian living in AD 300 and wanted an accurate Old Testament in Greek? If it had been me, I would have preferred the NT's presentation of the Old Testament and incorporated NT readings as better than the uninspired LXX. Thus, I think that our so-called LXX manuscripts have been altered to agree with the NT at times; so you can't know that the NT is copying the LXX at any point.

What we have in the NT is the Holy Spirit giving us the gist of OT passages in Greek, not quotations. Also, we probably do not have verbatim sayings of the Lord Jesus (probably uttered in Aramaic), but the gist of what He said in Greek as accurately expressed by the Holy Spirit. So if the Lord Jesus refers to the OT (It is written), we don't have exactly what He said -- He may well have quoted it in Hebrew instead of Aramaic. I suppose He could have given the gist of the OT in Aramaic, a cognate language. I highly doubt that the Lord Jesus quoted from the LXX in Greek.

Thus, I don't accept the theory that the NT quotes the LXX.

And the sources for 'your take' are?

-JGIG

 

[oldthennew]

One thing that should be acknowledged is that there are truths in Scripture that cut across cultural divides and go deeper and earlier than Alexander or Abraham or even the flood right into the Garden itself (Adam /Eve) whose meanings are revealed to us (as born again Christians) by both the Author of all languages and Scripture itself.

======================================================================

cross,
well put, friend.

so many times, my wife and I go back to those first few chapters in Genesis
and see the mind of God at work.

so moving are His everlasting principles, in a way that no other words can move us
He can takes us back to experiencing those primitive feelings,
not only after the fall, but before.
it makes one yearn for the scriptures to come to pass,
'Behold, I create a new heaven and a new earth.'

 

[Elin]

not only does this post have nothing to do with which worldview, culture and mentality Christians should have,
it's one of the worst translated verses and one of the most egregiously taken out of context I've seen.

try beginning in Acts 23 and reading all the way through.
Paul says he's on trial for believing in the resurrection of the dead (which the Saducees did not believe).
24 v. 5 tells us he's in trouble for being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". (believers in Jesus as Christ!)
that's what your verse refers to as heresy.

Paul believed all that had been written in the Prophets about Jesus, in accordance with the Law.
He's being accused by Jews!
He lets us know that this "Way" (salvation through faith in Jesus as the Christ) is what the Jews call a sect, or what your translation calls heresy.

Culture is insignificant, as God has called people from every tribe, tongue and nation to Himself.
The worldview and mentality which should prevail among Christians is that of Christianity.

Thank you for your critique.

Not too sure about your last sentence though. Could you clarify that for me? Which "sect" of Christianity? Aren't there about a bajillion?

The NT will do just fine.

 

[Elin]

I am pretty sure it is imperative that a person must learn or have some basic understanding of all languages to get the most accurate meaning of a word.

Nope.

The meaning of a word is its definition in its language.

 

[Elin]

I have a different take on this JGig.

First of all, a translation is not a quote. A quote must be exact to be a quote. If you take a Hebrew sentence and translate it, the translation is not a quote. Now it is possible for a Greek document (like the NT) to quote another Greek document. But I don't think there is any way to establish that the NT quotes the LXX. The reason is that we don't have any LXX manuscript that predates the NT, except for fragments, so far as I know. What we have and what is called the LXX is really not the LXX, but the Greek OT, as attached to great codexes of the NT, no earlier than 4th century AD.

So what would you have done had you been a Christian living in AD 300 and wanted an accurate Old Testament in Greek? If it had been me, I would have preferred the NT's presentation of the Old Testament and incorporated NT readings as better than
the uninspired LXX.

So that means the the KJV is uninspired, as well as the Latin Vulgate, and whatever translation you choose to use?

Thus, I think that our so-called LXX manuscripts have been altered to agree with the NT at times; so you can't know that the NT is copying the LXX at any point.

What we have in the NT is
the Holy Spirit giving us the gist of OT passages in Greek, not quotations. Also,
we probably do not have verbatim sayings of the Lord Jesus (probably uttered in Aramaic), but
the gist of what He said in Greek as accurately expressed by the Holy Spirit. So if the Lord Jesus refers to the OT (It is written),
we don't have exactly what He said --

Sounds a whole lot like a distinction without a Biblical difference.

He may well have quoted it in Hebrew instead of Aramaic. I suppose He could have given the gist of the OT in Aramaic, a cognate language.
I highly doubt that the Lord Jesus quoted from the LXX in Greek.

Thus, I don't accept the theory that the NT quotes the LXX.

And I find your rationale convoluted.

 

[RedTent]

Um, RedTent, don't look now, but that kind of makes Angela a scholar, yes?

Aren't you looking to scholars of your choosing who have led you into and support your belief system?

The mindset that tells us that we need to look at the Scriptures from an Hebraic mindset comes with a Law-keeping agenda. We see this, are aware of this, and are not shy about speaking up against it, because it goes against the Gospel and the Work of Christ, the culmination of the Scriptures.

-JGIG

No, I do not follow all people who have gone to study bible at a college because I found that some of these people add their own ideas to scripture.

The mindset of some is not open to pure bible. Angela says "all Hebrew Roots teach law keeping agenda". I have looked into this idea of a closer look at the Old Testament enough to know that is an untrue statement. True bible scholars I have found do not make untrue judgments of others. I do not go to a "roots" movement church, but I am scholar enough to find out what they believe, and I have gone to a community bible class that included a woman from this church. The ones I found, and people I have talked to in them, believe in scripture. If they believed we are saved through law they would do as many who are accepted by our Christian world do, ignore parts of scripture, for scripture is very clear it is not the obedience to law that leads to our salvation, but grace.

Many "Christians" are so against scripture that they are sure they can choose what scripture in the bible to read and learn from. Two clues to one of these people is "all people of a certain sect are completely wrong" and "that portion of scripture is not for us but meant for another segment of people". Scripture tells us to avoid certain people. We are to watch to see if they have love in their hearts for we know Christians by their love, and we are not to add or take away from scripture.

When I choose a scholar to help me understand scripture, I look to see if their mind is clouded with man's ideas instead of God's.

 

[crossnote]

Many "Christians" are so against scripture that they are sure they can choose what scripture in the bible to read and learn from. Two clues to one of these people is "all people of a certain sect are completely wrong" and "that portion of scripture is not for us but meant for another segment of people". Scripture tells us to avoid certain people. We are to watch to see if they have love in their hearts for we know Christians by their love, and we are not to add or take away from scripture.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Christians that would agree that the portion called Leviticus is written to the Christian and not to the Jews before the cross. But since you think all scripture is meant for us (to be observed)..have fun with Leviticus, and I guess you'll be avoiding me?

 

[iamsoandso]

maybe we've left out the most important part,,seeing we all must search for and post the scriptures in both Greek and Hebrew,then debate the correct meaning,,,,If the two olive branches come and seeing we in the world for the most part speak English,,,will we also see it as special if we hear the gospel in English?,,,what language do we need hear it in to perceive it?