Oldest Hebrew Text Found!

[Shwagga]

So, you can't answer the question with a simple yes or no? Why not? Maybe you have read the Talmud more than I have. Maybe you can tell me whether or not it speaks against Christ. It is not logical that it would not speak against Christ. Judaism is only true if Christ is not the Messiah. So they would tend to be open to unkind statements against Him. It's not anti-semitism. It's history. By the way, the whole world was involved in the crucifixion of Christ: that is, the Romans and the Jews together. Of course, the disciples mourned the death of their Lord. They had no part in condemning Christ to death.
The whole Testament speaks against those who deny Jesus is the Christ. See I John, for example.
Muslims, too, deny Jesus.

I am saying it's not a simple yes or no answer. There are way too many factors to factor into the equation. First we must date the writings here and take it into historical context. Second we have to see the correct translation. Third we have to make sure it's even about our Jesus, as I quoted earlier the name Yeshua/Jesus was not an uncommon name, especially in the first century. I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but there were many other people who claimed to be the Messiah, we can see this in Acts 5 for example. Honestly, I cannot give you a definite yes or no answer but I can refer you to scholars who have studied this more than I have. I do agree that yes, the whole world played a role in the crucifixion and Jesus Himself gave up His life willing (John 10:17-18). I would agree that whoever denies the Son... Well Jesus made it clear in John 3:16-18 that if we do not believe in Him we are condemned.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I am saying it's not a simple yes or no answer. There are way too many factors to factor into the equation. First we must date the writings here and take it into historical context. Second we have to see the correct translation. Third we have to make sure it's even about our Jesus, as I quoted earlier the name Yeshua/Jesus was not an uncommon name, especially in the first century. I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but there were many other people who claimed to be the Messiah, we can see this in Acts 5 for example. Honestly, I cannot give you a definite yes or no answer but I can refer you to scholars who have studied this more than I have. I do agree that yes, the whole world played a role in the crucifixion and Jesus Himself gave up His life willing (John 10:17-18). I would agree that whoever denies the Son... Well Jesus made it clear in John 3:16-18 that if we do not believe in Him we are condemned.

Dear Shwagga. I am sure it really is as simple as a yes or no answer. Most things of controversy really are simple. The Jews would not be talking about someone named "Yeshua" who wasn't Jesus Christ. If they had meant Joshua, the OT Captain of the Lord's Hosts, that would have been clear by the context. I believe you are trying to make a camel go through the eye of needle, trying to defend the Talmud is not something a believing Christian needs to do. It's not sympathetic to Jesus, and that's all we really need to know.
God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I am saying it's not a simple yes or no answer. There are way too many factors to factor into the equation. First we must date the writings here and take it into historical context. Second we have to see the correct translation. Third we have to make sure it's even about our Jesus, as I quoted earlier the name Yeshua/Jesus was not an uncommon name, especially in the first century. I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but there were many other people who claimed to be the Messiah, we can see this in Acts 5 for example. Honestly, I cannot give you a definite yes or no answer but I can refer you to scholars who have studied this more than I have. I do agree that yes, the whole world played a role in the crucifixion and Jesus Himself gave up His life willing (John 10:17-18). I would agree that whoever denies the Son... Well Jesus made it clear in John 3:16-18 that if we do not believe in Him we are condemned.

Amen. God loves Israel. Romans 11 makes that clear. He loves the whole world: Yes we believe that (John 3:16).

 

[Shwagga]

Dear Shwagga. I am sure it really is as simple as a yes or no answer. Most things of controversy really are simple. The Jews would not be talking about someone named "Yeshua" who wasn't Jesus Christ. If they had meant Joshua, the OT Captain of the Lord's Hosts, that would have been clear by the context. I believe you are trying to make a camel go through the eye of needle, trying to defend the Talmud is not something a believing Christian needs to do. It's not sympathetic to Jesus, and that's all we really need to know.
God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Just because you say that it's a simple yes or no answer doesn't make it true. Why would't Jews be talking about someone named Yeshua who is not our Yeshua? Do you know how many times the name Yeshua appears in the Talmud and how many times it does definitely not refer to our Yeshua? The answer is "many". I am just being fair in representing the Talmud, I do not accept liberal scholarship when it comes to other religions when I would never accept liberal scholarship when it comes to Christianity. So I am just trying to be fair here and present the other side.

Amen. God loves Israel. Romans 11 makes that clear. He loves the whole world: Yes we believe that (John 3:16).

Amen.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

More importantly, what does the oldest Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it to them.

In the Pe****ta English translation of George Lamsa for Isaiah 9:5 or 6, it has "The Everlasting God", instead of "The Everlasting Father", which is acceptable. It's only wrong if the word "Father" is applied to the Son as if the Son IS the Person of the Father.

 

[Shwagga]

In the Pe****ta English translation of George Lamsa for Isaiah 9:5 or 6, it has "The Everlasting God", instead of "The Everlasting Father", which is acceptable. It's only wrong if the word "Father" is applied to the Son as if the Son IS the Person of the Father.

The Pesheeta, again (like the LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew. Just like English translations today you have translations that would try to translate what they think the Hebrew/Greek means into English. I personally have not seen the Pesheeta (for the Old Testament) but I've seen Targum(s) which are other Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and most of them give the idea of what they think the Hebrew is trying to express and not an actual what we would consider "literal" translation, for this particular verse.. So, the Hebrew text is clear and it simply does not follow that Isaiah had Modalism in mind. Father in the Hebrew scriptures is used in the sense of Creatorship and not in the sense you are thinking about "God the Father". It's just conflicting two terms that are not exactly synonyms.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

The Pesheeta, again (like the LXX) is a

translation of the Hebrew. Just like English translations today you have

translations that would try to translate what they think the

Hebrew/Greek means into English. I personally have not seen the

Pesheeta (for the Old Testament) but I've seen Targum(s) which are

other Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and most of them

give the idea of what they think the Hebrew is trying to express and not

an actual what we would consider "literal" translation, for this particular

verse.. So, the Hebrew text is clear and it simply does not follow that

Isaiah had Modalism in mind. Father in the Hebrew scriptures is used in

the sense of Creatorship and not in the sense you are thinking about

"God the Father". It's just conflicting two terms that are not exactly

synonyms.

Dear Shwagga. That's not logical! God does not change. If it is

indeed "Father" in the Old, that can only mean God the Father. If the

word isn't Father, but simply God, it's okay. If it's Father, it is

Modalism/Sabellianism. The OT can't contradict the NT. If there is a

contradiction, then the word "Father" can't be in the authentic text of

the OT. As it is, the Septuagint doesn't have this, so it is not in conflict

with the NT. So I would prefer the translation in the Orthodox Study

Bible, Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint to the King James

Version. So, whatever text has the word Father can't be the original,

authentic OT text.

It really is quite simple if you allow the Holy Spirit to guide you, instead

of merely 500 years of Protestant tradition. What did the Church

Fathers say about this text in Isaiah? I would trust their judgment over

the spurious traditions of the last 600 years in the papist/Protestant

West.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

That's not logical! God does not change. If it is

indeed "Father" in the Old, that can only mean God the Father. If the

word isn't Father, but simply God, it's okay. If it's Father, it is

Modalism/Sabellianism.

I really hope you are actually reading what I am saying. I would agree that what you said here is illogical, however, I never said that. What I've been saying is "Father" in the sense of "God the Father" did not exist in the Hebrew scriptures. It exists in the sense of a Creator, like Fathering your creation. It's not about God the Father in the sense you are thinking. Anachronism is when you read something into history when that thing or concept did not exist in that time. Of course we have hints of the Trinity/complex unity of God in the Hebrew scriptures but, it's not clearly defined as it is in the incarnation of Jesus or in the New Testament as a whole. But there is not a concept of God the Father, God the Son etc in the Hebrew scriptures. But, when God is called Father in the Hebrew scriptures it's referring to God as our Creator. I repeated this over and over again and gave you an example from Malachi 2:10.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Dear Shwagga. That's not logical! God does not change. If it is

indeed "Father" in the Old, that can only mean God the Father. If the

word isn't Father, but simply God, it's okay. If it's Father, it is

Modalism/Sabellianism. The OT can't contradict the NT. If there is a

contradiction, then the word "Father" can't be in the authentic text of

the OT. As it is, the Septuagint doesn't have this, so it is not in conflict

with the NT. So I would prefer the translation in the Orthodox Study

Bible, Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint to the King James

Version. So, whatever text has the word Father can't be the original,

authentic OT text.

It really is quite simple if you allow the Holy Spirit to guide you, instead

of merely 500 years of Protestant tradition. What did the Church

Fathers say about this text in Isaiah? I would trust their judgment over

the spurious traditions of the last 600 years in the papist/Protestant

West.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Dear Shwagga:

I stand corrected by the Church Fathers. Actually, we are both correct!

The translation in the King James Version is correct; the translation

in the Orthodox Study Bible, Saint Athanasius Academy, is correct, too.

They are both the word of God. This verse in the King James Version

is not saying the Son is the Father. It is saying what Christ says,

"I and the Father are One", or "I and the Father are God".

"THE SON REVEALS THE FATHER. CHRYSOSTOM "The Son of God is

said to be the angel of great counsel because of his many other

teachings, but especially because he revealed his Father to humankind.

HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. (page 74.).

"CHRIST'S NAME POINTS TO HIS DIVINITY. ... Here Isaiah says,

"They shall call His name Immanuel". And again, he says, "A child

is born to us, and a son is given to us; and his name shall be

called the Angel of Great Counsel, God the Strong, the Mighty One."

AGAINST THE ANOMOEANS 5:15" (page 74.).

"9:7 No End of Peace

"CHRIST'S PEACE IS UNENDING. CHRYSOSTOM: "Listen to how

Isaiah predicted this long beforehand when he said, "and his name

shall be called Messenger of Great Counsel, the Mighty One, the Prince

of Peace, Father of the world to come". (page 76.).

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE, OLD

TESTAMENT X, ISAIAH 1-39. Edited by Steven A. McKinion. General

Editor, Thomas C. Oden. Copyright 2004, Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press.

Thus, we were each of us partially right, and partially incomplete.

These readings of Chrysostom, etc. show the translations of the KJV

and the OSB SAAS taken together are both in the ancient traditions

of the Greek Orthodox Church Fathers. So, each text is partially

correct, and partially leaving out something. Taken together, they

form the truer picture of what God is saying to us about His Son:

He is the Angel (Messenger) of Great Counsel Who comes to reveal

the Everlasting Father, the Father of the world to come. Not that the

Son IS the Everlasting Father. So, I was misreading modalism into

this, but you were also incorrect if you think the Septuagint translation

isn't correct, either. Both versions should be taken into consideration:

the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the Greek Septuagint text. That does

not solve the problem of Genesis 3:15 in the Jewish Publication

Society version of 1917 and also I believe in the 1985 New Jewish

Publication Society version. I believe the newer TANAKH version

of the Hebrew also continues this earlier tradition of 1917. I believe I

remember reading the NJPS translation sometime in the past, and it

does indeed contradict the NIV and the KJV translations. In Erie PA

Scott R. Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

That does

not solve the problem of Genesis 3:15 in the Jewish Publication

Society version of 1917 and also I believe in the 1985 New Jewish

Publication Society version. I believe the newer TANAKH version

of the Hebrew also continues this earlier tradition of 1917. I believe I

remember reading the NJPS translation sometime in the past, and it

does indeed contradict the NIV and the KJV translations. In Erie PA

Scott R. Harrington

I am glad to see you are open to correction about Isaiah 9:6, I respect that. Lord bless you.

As for Genesis 3:15 what is the problem here? I have read it in various Jewish translations and have read it in Christian translations. I don't see the discrepancy, perhaps you can clear this one up for me. Thanks.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I am glad to see you are open to correction

about Isaiah 9:6, I respect that. Lord bless you.

As for Genesis 3:15 what is the problem here? I have read it in various

Jewish translations and have read it in Christian translations. I don't see

the discrepancy, perhaps you can clear this one up for me. Thanks.

Dear Shwagga, Please read my other posts carefully. The

JPS translation says "bruise their heel". As in bruise the

Jewish people's heel. The KJV and NIV has "bruise (strike) his

heel", as in "bruise the Messiah's heel". A very very big

difference. Either the Messiah's suffering atones for the sins

of the whole world, both Jewish and Gentile (John 3:16), or

the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the

Gentiles is redemptive. The whole thing matters. The

suffering of the Jews hasn't led to a better world; the

suffering of Christ, and His resurrection from the dead, will

lead those who trust in Christ to Heaven. See Isaiah 53:11

please. Lord have mercy on us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R.

Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

Dear Shwagga, Please read my other posts carefully. The

JPS translation says "bruise their heel". As in bruise the

Jewish people's heel. The KJV and NIV has "bruise (strike) his

heel", as in "bruise the Messiah's heel". A very very big

difference. Either the Messiah's suffering atones for the sins

of the whole world, both Jewish and Gentile (John 3:16), or

the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the

Gentiles is redemptive. The whole thing matters. The

suffering of the Jews hasn't led to a better world; the

suffering of Christ, and His resurrection from the dead, will

lead those who trust in Christ to Heaven. See Isaiah 53:11

please. Lord have mercy on us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R.

Harrington

I was just reading a Jewish translation that rendered the text as "And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." and in fact the Jews were the first ones to interpret this as a Messianic prophecy. There is a specific targum that interprets Genesis 3:15 as "king Messiah"... Second, where is this passage ever quoted in the New Testament? Why would Jews be trying to distort the meaning if in fact the authors of the New Testament did not even apply the text to Jesus?

I agree the text is heavily Messanic and Jews do too. No one is trying to cover anything up with Genesis 3:15.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I was just reading a Jewish translation that

rendered the text as "And I shall place hatred between you and

between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He

will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." and in fact the Jews

were the first ones to interpret this as a Messianic prophecy. There is a

specific targum that interprets Genesis 3:15 as "king Messiah"...

Second, where is this passage ever quoted in the New Testament? Why

would Jews be trying to distort the meaning if in fact the authors of the

New Testament did not even apply the text to Jesus?

I agree the text is heavily Messanic and Jews do too. No one is trying to

cover anything up with Genesis 3:15.

You haven't read the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of

Genesis 3:15, then? See: Hebrew Bible in English, Jewish Publication

Society 1917 translation, please. God bless you. In Erie Scott R.

Harrington

PS

Why wouldn't Jewish people be trying to distort the meaning? Judaism

is predicated on distortion of the facts about Jesus Christ.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I was just reading a Jewish translation that

rendered the text as "And I shall place hatred between you and

between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He

will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." and in fact the Jews

were the first ones to interpret this as a Messianic prophecy. There is a

specific targum that interprets Genesis 3:15 as "king Messiah"...

Second, where is this passage ever quoted in the New Testament? Why

would Jews be trying to distort the meaning if in fact the authors of the

New Testament did not even apply the text to Jesus?

I agree the text is heavily Messanic and Jews do too. No one is trying to

cover anything up with Genesis 3:15.

Dear Shwagga: Please see:


A Hebrew-English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the

JPS 1917 Edition

www.mechon-mamre.org

God bless you. Amen. In Erie Scott R. Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

Dear Shwagga: Please see:


A Hebrew-English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the

JPS 1917 Edition

www.mechon-mamre.org

God bless you. Amen. In Erie Scott R. Harrington

But I just gave you a newer edition of a Jewish translation and they don't follow that translation. Anyway, it's not a big deal. Nothing to get bent out of shape over.

Lord bless you.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

But I just gave you a newer edition of a Jewish translation and they don't follow that translation. Anyway, it's not a big deal. Nothing to get bent out of shape over.

Lord bless you.

Dear Shwagga. Yes. It is a big deal. It affects our whole understanding of salvation. Is it by Christ, or by the OT Law?
See: Galatians, Hebrews, the Whole New Testament.
In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[Cleante]

Hey Shwagga. Long time no see. Hope you've been doing well.

I'll take the Septuagint any day.

Interesting Resource on Septuagint Quotations in the New Testament. http://sacredpresence.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

 

[Shwagga]

Hey Cleante,

Nice to see you again too! I'm doing fine thanks, i hope you are feeling blessed.

I would much rather prefer the Hebrew !

Nice link, I always find it useful to know when the LXX is being quoted and those rare occasions when the Hebrew is being quoted. For me, it just makes sense that the NT authors writing in Greek would use an already existing Greek translation which would be familiar to the readers.

Blessings.

 

[Shwagga]

Dear Shwagga. Yes. It is a big deal. It affects our whole understanding of salvation. Is it by Christ, or by the OT Law?
See: Galatians, Hebrews, the Whole New Testament.
In Erie Scott Harrington

I was pointing out the fact that there are more modern Jewish translations that use masculine singular instead of a plural. I also pointed out that Jews who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic before the time of Jesus - during the time of Jesus - and after, interpreted this very same scripture to be Messianic. So on some level some Jews agree with you that Genesis 3:15 is about the Messiah and other Jews who disagree would just find it to be an interesting interpretation.