Bibles

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
OMC said:
I appreciate the careful qualifications It's? making, and I agree that any responsible discussion of the Vulgate has to distinguish between its historical importance, its textual value, and its philological limitations.
But none of it's clarifications actually overturn the substance of what I said; they refine it, and I’m happy to affirm those refinements while still holding the central point
Click to expand...
Yes. I think this reply substantially agrees with the position I gave previously, but it sharpens one important distinction: the Vulgate's influence was not merely historical; its Latin vocabulary could itself become part of the interpretive chain through which Western Christianity understood biblical concepts.


I would make a few observations.


1. The central distinction is correct​


The strongest part is:


“When the question is What did Paul write? What did Moses mean? the Vulgate is secondary.”
Click to expand...

That is exactly the right methodological principle.


For the Old Testament, the Hebrew/Aramaic textual tradition is primary for determining what Moses wrote. For the New Testament, the Greek manuscripts are primary for determining what Paul wrote. The Vulgate can provide evidence about what Latin Christians were reading, but a translation cannot normally outrank the underlying-language witnesses for reconstructing the original wording.


2. “Theological distortion” needs careful wording​


I would still qualify the word “distort.”


There are at least four different things that can happen:


  • the Latin can be an outright translation error;
  • it can legitimately translate the Greek/Hebrew in a different way;
  • it can resolve an ambiguity that exists in the original;
  • later theological tradition can attach a meaning to the Latin word that goes beyond what Jerome intended.

Those shouldn't all be called “distortion.”


For example, if a Greek word has a broad semantic range and Jerome chooses one legitimate Latin equivalent, the subsequent Western theological development of that Latin term isn't necessarily a defect in Jerome's translation.


3. The semantic point is particularly important​


This is the part of the reply I think deserves the most attention:


“The Vulgate’s theological influence is not merely historical; it is semantic.”
Click to expand...

Yes—but with an important qualification.


A translation doesn't merely transfer words. It makes interpretive choices.


Greek → Latin → later theological Latin → vernacular translation → theological vocabulary.


Consequently, someone reading an English Bible that ultimately inherited terminology through the Latin tradition can sometimes be several interpretive decisions removed from the Greek.


That doesn't mean the English translation is wrong. It means that the English word should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the entire semantic range of the Greek word behind it.


That is especially relevant to the kinds of questions you've been examining concerning words such as pistis, pisteuō, sarx, nomos, dikaiosynē, ekklesia, and others.


4. One statement I'd modify​


The sentence:


“Its value is textual-historical, not philological-foundational.”
Click to expand...

is broadly right, but I'd make it slightly less absolute.


The Vulgate does have philological value—just not the same kind of foundational value as the Hebrew and Greek. Jerome's Latin can sometimes illuminate how a Hebrew or Greek expression was understood in antiquity, and in some cases it can preserve evidence relevant to an earlier textual reading.


So I'd say:


The Vulgate is not a foundational linguistic authority for reconstructing the Hebrew or Greek, but it is a valuable secondary philological witness.


That is more precise.


Bottom line​


I don't think this reply actually refutes the previous assessment. It mostly reinforces it while emphasizing an additional consequence of translation: semantic influence.


The hierarchy I'd use is:


Original-language manuscripts → ancient textual witnesses/translations → later translations → theological tradition built upon those translations.


And therefore, when there is a disputed theological meaning, the safest question is ultimately:


What does the Hebrew or Koine Greek actually say in its immediate context?


The Vulgate can help us understand how Latin Christianity read the text, and sometimes even help reconstruct an earlier textual state. But it should not be allowed to determine what the Hebrew or Greek must mean.
 
Inquisitor said:
Yes. I think this reply substantially agrees with the position I gave previously, but it sharpens one important distinction: the Vulgate's influence was not merely historical; its Latin vocabulary could itself become part of the interpretive chain through which Western Christianity understood biblical concepts.


I would make a few observations.


1. The central distinction is correct​


The strongest part is:




That is exactly the right methodological principle.


For the Old Testament, the Hebrew/Aramaic textual tradition is primary for determining what Moses wrote. For the New Testament, the Greek manuscripts are primary for determining what Paul wrote. The Vulgate can provide evidence about what Latin Christians were reading, but a translation cannot normally outrank the underlying-language witnesses for reconstructing the original wording.


2. “Theological distortion” needs careful wording​


I would still qualify the word “distort.”


There are at least four different things that can happen:


  • the Latin can be an outright translation error;
  • it can legitimately translate the Greek/Hebrew in a different way;
  • it can resolve an ambiguity that exists in the original;
  • later theological tradition can attach a meaning to the Latin word that goes beyond what Jerome intended.

Those shouldn't all be called “distortion.”


For example, if a Greek word has a broad semantic range and Jerome chooses one legitimate Latin equivalent, the subsequent Western theological development of that Latin term isn't necessarily a defect in Jerome's translation.


3. The semantic point is particularly important​


This is the part of the reply I think deserves the most attention:




Yes—but with an important qualification.


A translation doesn't merely transfer words. It makes interpretive choices.


Greek → Latin → later theological Latin → vernacular translation → theological vocabulary.


Consequently, someone reading an English Bible that ultimately inherited terminology through the Latin tradition can sometimes be several interpretive decisions removed from the Greek.


That doesn't mean the English translation is wrong. It means that the English word should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the entire semantic range of the Greek word behind it.


That is especially relevant to the kinds of questions you've been examining concerning words such as pistis, pisteuō, sarx, nomos, dikaiosynē, ekklesia, and others.


4. One statement I'd modify​


The sentence:




is broadly right, but I'd make it slightly less absolute.


The Vulgate does have philological value—just not the same kind of foundational value as the Hebrew and Greek. Jerome's Latin can sometimes illuminate how a Hebrew or Greek expression was understood in antiquity, and in some cases it can preserve evidence relevant to an earlier textual reading.


So I'd say:


The Vulgate is not a foundational linguistic authority for reconstructing the Hebrew or Greek, but it is a valuable secondary philological witness.


That is more precise.


Bottom line​


I don't think this reply actually refutes the previous assessment. It mostly reinforces it while emphasizing an additional consequence of translation: semantic influence.


The hierarchy I'd use is:


Original-language manuscripts → ancient textual witnesses/translations → later translations → theological tradition built upon those translations.


And therefore, when there is a disputed theological meaning, the safest question is ultimately:


What does the Hebrew or Koine Greek actually say in its immediate context?


The Vulgate can help us understand how Latin Christianity read the text, and sometimes even help reconstruct an earlier textual state. But it should not be allowed to determine what the Hebrew or Greek must mean.
Click to expand...
The AI’s assessment doesn’t actually challenge anything I wrote; it simply restates the same hierarchy Scripture itself demands — the Hebrew and Greek are the primary witnesses, ancient translations like the Vulgate are secondary, later vernacular translations are tertiary, and theological tradition built on those translations is quaternary — and that is precisely why every disputed meaning must ultimately return to what the inspired authors wrote in their own languages. The AI’s refinements about “distortion,” semantic development, and the philological value of the Vulgate are all fair, but none of them overturn the central point: a translation can illuminate how a text was understood, but it cannot determine what the text must mean. The bottom line remains unchanged — when theology diverges, the only safe question is What does the Hebrew or Koine Greek actually say in its immediate context? Everything else, including the Vulgate, is a witness to reception, not a foundation for meaning.
 
OMC said:
Invoking “pesher” does not rescue your argument; it actually exposes its flaw.
Pesher is not a license to invent meaning — it is a Second‑Temple Jewish method of applying earlier Scripture to present circumstances, and the NT writers use it precisely because they believe the OT meaning is stable enough to be applied.
Your examples misunderstand both the method and the text.
The Habakkuk Pesher does not prove the OT is unclear; it proves that later communities saw the OT as authoritative and meaningful, not malleable. Likewise, the Isaiah 7:14 citation does not depend on forcing “virgin” into the Hebrew — Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which already uses parthenos, showing that preserved meaning across languages is sufficient for inspired application. Your claim that contradictions only “prove preservation if one assumes preservation” ignores the actual data: the NT authors freely quote the LXX, the MT, and Aramaic forms because the semantic core remains intact across witnesses.
That is preservation.
And your appeal to “lost works” misunderstands the difference between non‑canonical historical sources and preserved revelation. The existence of uninspired lost texts does not imply Scripture was lost; it simply shows that God preserved what He intended to preserve.
Your system assumes human fallibility is the controlling factor, so you conclude that meaning is unknowable unless God re‑reveals it. But Scripture itself teaches the opposite: God preserves His word through multiplicity, clarity, and inspired application — not through a single perfect manuscript line and not through the modern fallibilism you are importing into the discussion.
Click to expand...
And I trust that there was absolutely NO canon of scripture during the lifetime of the apostles, so any reference to scripture made during that time is vague. There would be no generally accepted Christian canon until the 4th century for the OT and the 5th for the NT, and even then, the canon applied only within the Roman empire.

As for applying something accepted as scripture to present day circumstances, as was done in peshers, does not mean that it was a proper usage of scripture, nor that scripture supported the use, just that it was done. My point stands.

You are seeking to defend the indefensible and using well-established, but flawed, arguments. That you are ignorant of the flaws is not my failure but yours.
 
rewriter said:
And I trust that there was absolutely NO canon of scripture during the lifetime of the apostles, so any reference to scripture made during that time is vague. There would be no generally accepted Christian canon until the 4th century for the OT and the 5th for the NT, and even then, the canon applied only within the Roman empire.

As for applying something accepted as scripture to present day circumstances, as was done in peshers, does not mean that it was a proper usage of scripture, nor that scripture supported the use, just that it was done. My point stands.

You are seeking to defend the indefensible and using well-established, but flawed, arguments. That you are ignorant of the flaws is not my failure but yours.
Click to expand...
The confidence with which you dismiss the canon, the apostles, and two thousand years of Christian reading reveals a deeper issue: you are treating your certainty as the standard of truth, not the fear of the Lord. You say there was “no canon,” therefore apostolic references to Scripture were “vague,” therefore pesher use was “improper,” therefore your point “stands,” therefore anyone who disagrees is “ignorant.”
But every one of those claims collapses under the weight of the very Scriptures you’re invoking.
Jesus spoke of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” as a known, bounded canon.
Paul told Timothy “the sacred writings” he had known from childhood were authoritative.
The apostles quoted the OT as Scripture, not as “vague texts.”
And the NT writers used pesher‑style fulfillment because they believed the OT was coherent, inspired, and binding, not because they were misusing it.
You are not exposing flaws in the canon; you are exposing how tightly you cling to your own system. The danger is not that you disagree — the danger is that you speak as though being wrong would be catastrophic, so you treat disagreement as ignorance rather than an invitation to humility. The fear of the Lord produces teachability; the fear of being wrong produces defensiveness.
 
OMC said:
The confidence with which you dismiss the canon, the apostles, and two thousand years of Christian reading reveals a deeper issue: you are treating your certainty as the standard of truth, not the fear of the Lord. You say there was “no canon,” therefore apostolic references to Scripture were “vague,” therefore pesher use was “improper,” therefore your point “stands,” therefore anyone who disagrees is “ignorant.”
But every one of those claims collapses under the weight of the very Scriptures you’re invoking.
Jesus spoke of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” as a known, bounded canon.
Paul told Timothy “the sacred writings” he had known from childhood were authoritative.
The apostles quoted the OT as Scripture, not as “vague texts.”
And the NT writers used pesher‑style fulfillment because they believed the OT was coherent, inspired, and binding, not because they were misusing it.
You are not exposing flaws in the canon; you are exposing how tightly you cling to your own system. The danger is not that you disagree — the danger is that you speak as though being wrong would be catastrophic, so you treat disagreement as ignorance rather than an invitation to humility. The fear of the Lord produces teachability; the fear of being wrong produces defensiveness.
Click to expand...
And what was included in "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms? The Book of Ruth for example was not recognized as prophetic, Torah nor as a Psalm in the 1st century. rather it was included in the "Writings", as were many other works in the established canon. So were they included in what Jesus referred to or not? If they were included, why were they not mentioned, if they were not, then you r argument falls apart.

But also, what about the evidence that suggests that some parts of Torah were changed? Various passages in both Numbers (5:7) and Leviticus (5:16, 6:5, 27:13-15, 19, 27) make perfect sense in light of events in the late 4th century BCE (the weight of one sheqel was reduced from 24 units to 20 units of silver, so an added 1/5 would restore the original value), but not in earlier times. Were strange laws recorded to account for events that would not occur for centuries or were the texts adjusted to maintain coherence with the historic laws?

And when, in the late 1st century CE, the Jews established what Christians ultimately made the OT canon (although without claiming that it was closed until the 16th century for Protestants), was their logic to include all that Jews recognized as scripture (they did not) or to just choose works that served their desired beliefs and ignored other works that were more widely accepted by Christians?

Perhaps you are not aware that most people who look at the process of deciding what qualifies as scripture tend to liken the process to making sausage, you might like the end result, but the process of getting there is not for the faint of heart but rather very messy and distasteful. With regards to what is or is not scripture, politics seems to have played a huge role. Hebrews made it in via deliberate misappropriation to Paul, it was known even in ancient times that Paul did not write it, but the attribution made it "apostolic" while other works like the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement, and even much of Josephus, did not have such a claim, and were thus excludable,
 
rewriter said:
And what was included in "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms? The Book of Ruth for example was not recognized as prophetic, Torah nor as a Psalm in the 1st century. rather it was included in the "Writings", as were many other works in the established canon. So were they included in what Jesus referred to or not? If they were included, why were they not mentioned, if they were not, then you r argument falls apart.
Click to expand...
When Jesus mentioned “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” He was referring to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon by their representative sections. That’s why I believe Ruth and every book in the Writings were included, even if not named individually, because Jesus was pointing to the entire framework, not listing each book.
rewriter said:
But also, what about the evidence that suggests that some parts of Torah were changed? Various passages in both Numbers (5:7) and Leviticus (5:16, 6:5, 27:13-15, 19, 27) make perfect sense in light of events in the late 4th century BCE (the weight of one sheqel was reduced from 24 units to 20 units of silver, so an added 1/5 would restore the original value), but not in earlier times. Were strange laws recorded to account for events that would not occur for centuries or were the texts adjusted to maintain coherence with the historic laws?
Click to expand...
I believe the so‑called “evidence” of late‑period sheqel changes doesn’t prove the Torah was altered. Moses wrote down God’s laws as they were given, and later economic changes just make some restitution amounts look historically convenient, not edited. The Law’s fixed fractions reflect a divine principle, not a currency that shifts with the times.
rewriter said:
And when, in the late 1st century CE, the Jews established what Christians ultimately made the OT canon (although without claiming that it was closed until the 16th century for Protestants), was their logic to include all that Jews recognized as scripture (they did not) or to just choose works that served their desired beliefs and ignored other works that were more widely accepted by Christians?
Click to expand...
I believe that when the rabbis at Yavneh shaped the post‑Temple canon, they weren’t picking books to match their beliefs but were simply preserving the long‑recognized Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus Himself referenced. I also reject the idea that they left out Christian‑favored works, since those writings were never part of the Jewish canon in the first place, and their absence doesn’t diminish the authority of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
rewriter said:
Perhaps you are not aware that most people who look at the process of deciding what qualifies as scripture tend to liken the process to making sausage, you might like the end result, but the process of getting there is not for the faint of heart but rather very messy and distasteful. With regards to what is or is not scripture, politics seems to have played a huge role. Hebrews made it in via deliberate misappropriation to Paul, it was known even in ancient times that Paul did not write it, but the attribution made it "apostolic" while other works like the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement, and even much of Josephus, did not have such a claim, and were thus excludable,
Click to expand...
I admit the “sausage‑making” metaphor gives a wrong impression of how the canon came together. I believe politics didn’t decide Scripture—Hebrews was accepted because the church saw its apostolic teaching, not due to a fake authorship. Books like Hermas or 1 Clement weren’t left out by political maneuvering but because, unlike the Law, Prophets, and Writings affirmed by Christ, they didn’t carry the signs of God‑given authority.
 
OMC said:
When Jesus mentioned “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” He was referring to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon by their representative sections. That’s why I believe Ruth and every book in the Writings were included, even if not named individually, because Jesus was pointing to the entire framework, not listing each book.

I believe the so‑called “evidence” of late‑period sheqel changes doesn’t prove the Torah was altered. Moses wrote down God’s laws as they were given, and later economic changes just make some restitution amounts look historically convenient, not edited. The Law’s fixed fractions reflect a divine principle, not a currency that shifts with the times.

I believe that when the rabbis at Yavneh shaped the post‑Temple canon, they weren’t picking books to match their beliefs but were simply preserving the long‑recognized Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus Himself referenced. I also reject the idea that they left out Christian‑favored works, since those writings were never part of the Jewish canon in the first place, and their absence doesn’t diminish the authority of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

I admit the “sausage‑making” metaphor gives a wrong impression of how the canon came together. I believe politics didn’t decide Scripture—Hebrews was accepted because the church saw its apostolic teaching, not due to a fake authorship. Books like Hermas or 1 Clement weren’t left out by political maneuvering but because, unlike the Law, Prophets, and Writings affirmed by Christ, they didn’t carry the signs of God‑given authority.
Click to expand...
You make a lot of assumptions, including that the money's being paid were allowed to be reduced in the late 4th century rather than being maintained. What is your logic for that assumption that would avoid claims of injustice when the currency was devalued?

The Rabbis at Yavneh clearly did not have clear references to what Jesus viewed as scripture. in fact, there were at the time three widely accepted collections of works that were all regarded as scripture, and the Masoretic Text, which is the version accepted by the Rabbis, has the weakest evidence for being widely accepted, but it would have dodged political associations that he other two options carried.

As to the "signs of God given authority", why were works that were widely acknowledged as having such signs ignored? What "signs' are present that the ignored works lack, other than political incorrectness for the times? Note, this last question requires you to have awareness of the rejected works, some of which match Hebrews in many ways.
 
rewriter said:
You make a lot of assumptions, including that the money's being paid were allowed to be reduced in the late 4th century rather than being maintained. What is your logic for that assumption that would avoid claims of injustice when the currency was devalued?
Click to expand...
I reject the idea that I assumed a late‑4th‑century sheqel reduction, since my argument never depended on claiming payments were lowered. My point has always been that the Torah’s restitution fractions reflect fixed moral principles, not shifting currency values, so the justice of the Law isn’t tied to later monetary changes. The Torah’s commands—like adding a fifth part (20%) in Leviticus and Numbers—are moral ratios, not currency‑based calibrations. Restitution is tied to what’s owed to God or neighbor, not to the current weight of a sheqel. Even if a later society devalued its currency, the Law’s justice holds because the command is about restoring value by a set percentage, not preserving a fixed metal standard. I deny that the Torah assumes or requires a stable sheqel weight over centuries, affirming instead that its righteousness is grounded in proportional equity—“restore what was lost plus a fifth”—which stays fair regardless of economic fluctuations. So currency devaluation causes no injustice, since the Law’s requirement is value‑driven, not weight‑driven, and its moral logic is independent of late 4th‑century monetary policy.

rewriter said:
The Rabbis at Yavneh clearly did not have clear references to what Jesus viewed as scripture. in fact, there were at the time three widely accepted collections of works that were all regarded as scripture, and the Masoretic Text, which is the version accepted by the Rabbis, has the weakest evidence for being widely accepted, but it would have dodged political associations that he other two options carried.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your claim that the rabbis at YavnehI lacked clarity about what Jesus considered Scripture, though I admit that Jesus Himself clearly identified the Hebrew canon’s threefold structure — “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” — and I therefore reject the idea that multiple competing canons were equally authoritative in His ministry or in the apostolic era.
I agree that Second Temple Judaism included many writings and that various Jewish groups, like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Hellenistic Jews, valued different collections.
However, I don’t believe this means there were “three widely accepted collections” all viewed as Scripture in the same way.
I hold that Jesus settled the issue by identifying the threefold Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), matching the structure later preserved by the rabbis: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. This canon was already authoritative in His time, used in synagogue readings, cited by Him and the apostles, and clearly set apart from other Jewish works. The Masoretic tradition didn’t create this canon; it inherited it.
I reject the idea that the rabbis selected the canon for political reasons, believing instead that they simply formalized the same Scriptures affirmed by Jesus, quoted by the apostles, and recognized across mainstream Judaism long before Yavneh.
rewriter said:
As to the "signs of God given authority", why were works that were widely acknowledged as having such signs ignored? What "signs' are present that the ignored works lack, other than political incorrectness for the times? Note, this last question requires you to have awareness of the rejected works, some of which match Hebrews in many ways.
Click to expand...
I reject the idea that the dismissed Second Temple writings were overlooked despite showing “signs of God‑given authority,” because I believe the early church and mainstream Judaism identified clear marks of divine inspiration that these texts didn’t have—marks that were textual, theological, and prophetic, not political.
I agree that several Second Temple writings—like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and others—offer rich theology, moral teaching, and apocalyptic imagery similar to Hebrews, but I don’t think similarity means inspiration.
I believe the canonical Scriptures have three key traits the excluded works lack:
(1) prophetic continuity, staying in line with the Law and the Prophets without contradiction;
(2) apostolic authentication, being received, quoted, or affirmed by Jesus or His apostles; and
(3) covenantal authority, fitting into the unfolding redemptive story rather than serving as devotional or sectarian writings.
The rejected works miss the mark here—they have chronological mistakes, theological additions, angelology that clashes with the Hebrew canon, unverified prophetic claims, and sectarian biases linked to Essene, apocalyptic, or early Christian groups. I don’t think they were excluded for political reasons, but because they lack the canonical marks that set apart the Law, Prophets, and Writings affirmed by Jesus.
 
OMC said:
I reject the idea that I assumed a late‑4th‑century sheqel reduction, since my argument never depended on claiming payments were lowered. My point has always been that the Torah’s restitution fractions reflect fixed moral principles, not shifting currency values, so the justice of the Law isn’t tied to later monetary changes. The Torah’s commands—like adding a fifth part (20%) in Leviticus and Numbers—are moral ratios, not currency‑based calibrations. Restitution is tied to what’s owed to God or neighbor, not to the current weight of a sheqel. Even if a later society devalued its currency, the Law’s justice holds because the command is about restoring value by a set percentage, not preserving a fixed metal standard. I deny that the Torah assumes or requires a stable sheqel weight over centuries, affirming instead that its righteousness is grounded in proportional equity—“restore what was lost plus a fifth”—which stays fair regardless of economic fluctuations. So currency devaluation causes no injustice, since the Law’s requirement is value‑driven, not weight‑driven, and its moral logic is independent of late 4th‑century monetary policy.


I disagree with your claim that the rabbis at YavnehI lacked clarity about what Jesus considered Scripture, though I admit that Jesus Himself clearly identified the Hebrew canon’s threefold structure — “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” — and I therefore reject the idea that multiple competing canons were equally authoritative in His ministry or in the apostolic era.
I agree that Second Temple Judaism included many writings and that various Jewish groups, like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Hellenistic Jews, valued different collections.
However, I don’t believe this means there were “three widely accepted collections” all viewed as Scripture in the same way.
I hold that Jesus settled the issue by identifying the threefold Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), matching the structure later preserved by the rabbis: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. This canon was already authoritative in His time, used in synagogue readings, cited by Him and the apostles, and clearly set apart from other Jewish works. The Masoretic tradition didn’t create this canon; it inherited it.
I reject the idea that the rabbis selected the canon for political reasons, believing instead that they simply formalized the same Scriptures affirmed by Jesus, quoted by the apostles, and recognized across mainstream Judaism long before Yavneh.

I reject the idea that the dismissed Second Temple writings were overlooked despite showing “signs of God‑given authority,” because I believe the early church and mainstream Judaism identified clear marks of divine inspiration that these texts didn’t have—marks that were textual, theological, and prophetic, not political.
I agree that several Second Temple writings—like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and others—offer rich theology, moral teaching, and apocalyptic imagery similar to Hebrews, but I don’t think similarity means inspiration.
I believe the canonical Scriptures have three key traits the excluded works lack:
(1) prophetic continuity, staying in line with the Law and the Prophets without contradiction;
(2) apostolic authentication, being received, quoted, or affirmed by Jesus or His apostles; and
(3) covenantal authority, fitting into the unfolding redemptive story rather than serving as devotional or sectarian writings.
The rejected works miss the mark here—they have chronological mistakes, theological additions, angelology that clashes with the Hebrew canon, unverified prophetic claims, and sectarian biases linked to Essene, apocalyptic, or early Christian groups. I don’t think they were excluded for political reasons, but because they lack the canonical marks that set apart the Law, Prophets, and Writings affirmed by Jesus.
Click to expand...
So p[roper restitution is required by Torah. Thus, if I borrow a hundred dollars from you, promising to pay back one hundred twenty dollars based on then current valuations, and the dollar gets substantially devalued, you have no complaints that you are losing money on the transaction? I meet the letter of the agreement, if not the spirit, but you do not mind, or is the spirit of the transaction what is important? That is, one is obligated to render a set weight of silver as measured by this specific coin at this specific date. But at a later cate, when the coin is later reduced in weight, the required weight is also reduced?

And regarding what Jesus viewed as scripture, John's disciples approached Jesus asking on John's behalf if Jesus was truly the one. Jesus gave a reply which presumably He expected John to accept as a proper answer. Now if, as I can maintain, Jesus cited scripture then there is no question about the expectations that John would accept it. However, since you claim, by implication as the passage does not appear in the recognized canon of the OT, that this answer did not cite scripture, why should John have accepted it? And of the three versions, and given that you acknowledge use of the OT by both Jesus and the Apostles, why is the version that is the least cited the official one, the Septuagint is number one with approximately 2/3's of all NT citations, followed by the Syriac as the only potential source and the Masoretic able to claim that it was the exclusive source exactly zero times? The Septuagint and the Syriac texts were the two most popular, but both were associated with anti-Roman culture after the early 70's at the latest, so are you claiming that the Jews suddenly got pro-Roman before they switched back to anti-Roman in the early 2nd century, or might there have been a political incentive to proclaim the least anti-Roman version of the Jewish scriptures to be the official version.

I can easily see cherished justifications for supporting the Masoretic text, but then alcoholics can always find justification for their drinking and abused people find it easy to excuse their abusers in many cases. Would you care to explain why the case is different with regards to your justification of the canon of the OT, because to me, your arguments are just as valid as those in the other cases.
 
rewriter said:
So p[roper restitution is required by Torah. Thus, if I borrow a hundred dollars from you, promising to pay back one hundred twenty dollars based on then current valuations, and the dollar gets substantially devalued, you have no complaints that you are losing money on the transaction? I meet the letter of the agreement, if not the spirit, but you do not mind, or is the spirit of the transaction what is important? That is, one is obligated to render a set weight of silver as measured by this specific coin at this specific date. But at a later cate, when the coin is later reduced in weight, the required weight is also reduced?
Click to expand...
In the Torah, restitution is always based on a fixed, objective value measured by set weights, not on the shifting worth of later coins or paper money. A “shekel” in Moses’ law wasn’t a coin but a specific weight of silver defined by the shekel of the sanctuary, which stayed constant even if rulers debased coins or changed monetary systems. So, if someone borrowed the value of “one hundred shekels” and agreed to repay “one hundred twenty shekels,” the repayment was tied to the original weight of silver, not whatever later passed as a shekel. The Torah bans dishonest weights and measures (Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13–15), meaning the fairness of the deal is built into the rules: repayment must match the value taken, by the same weight, no matter how currency is devalued or manipulated later. In short, repayment is about stable value, fixed at the time of borrowing, not altered by later monetary tricks.
rewriter said:
And regarding what Jesus viewed as scripture, John's disciples approached Jesus asking on John's behalf if Jesus was truly the one. Jesus gave a reply which presumably He expected John to accept as a proper answer. Now if, as I can maintain, Jesus cited scripture then there is no question about the expectations that John would accept it. However, since you claim, by implication as the passage does not appear in the recognized canon of the OT, that this answer did not cite scripture, why should John have accepted it? And of the three versions, and given that you acknowledge use of the OT by both Jesus and the Apostles, why is the version that is the least cited the official one, the Septuagint is number one with approximately 2/3's of all NT citations, followed by the Syriac as the only potential source and the Masoretic able to claim that it was the exclusive source exactly zero times? The Septuagint and the Syriac texts were the two most popular, but both were associated with anti-Roman culture after the early 70's at the latest, so are you claiming that the Jews suddenly got pro-Roman before they switched back to anti-Roman in the early 2nd century, or might there have been a political incentive to proclaim the least anti-Roman version of the Jewish scriptures to be the official version.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist only makes sense if He expected John to recognize it as Scripture, since He confirmed His identity solely by pointing to prophetic fulfillment rather than personal reassurances. The signs He lists—blind seeing, lame walking, lepers cleansed, deaf hearing, dead raised, poor receiving good news—align with Isaiah in the Septuagint and Syriac traditions, not the later Masoretic Text, which lacks the same phrasing, order, and structure. This matches the pattern throughout the New Testament, which draws on the Septuagint for about two‑thirds of its quotations, the Syriac in many others, and never relies exclusively on the Masoretic Text, showing that Jesus and the apostles used the textual forms common in the first‑century Jewish world, not the later rabbinic canon. After 70 AD, the rabbis at Yavneh had political reasons to reject Greek and Syriac traditions—linked to anti‑Roman sentiment and growing Christian use—and to promote the lesser‑used Hebrew tradition as “official” to unify Jewish identity under Roman rule. The modern Masoretic canon, then, is not what Jesus used, not what the apostles quoted, and not what John would have recognized in Jesus’ Scriptural answer.
rewriter said:
I can easily see cherished justifications for supporting the Masoretic text, but then alcoholics can always find justification for their drinking and abused people find it easy to excuse their abusers in many cases. Would you care to explain why the case is different with regards to your justification of the canon of the OT, because to me, your arguments are just as valid as those in the other cases
Click to expand...
My critique of the Masoretic canon isn’t based on emotional attachment, institutional nostalgia, or psychological coping, but on textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. Jesus and the apostles largely used the Septuagint, early Jewish‑Christian communities drew from Syriac and Greek Isaiah, the NT never cites the MT, and the post‑70 AD rabbinic promotion of the proto‑Masoretic tradition was about political consolidation under Roman rule, not textual superiority. Modern defenses of the MT often follow the same self‑justifying logic you described — holding onto a familiar authority, overlooking its flaws, and retrofitting theological necessity onto a text Jesus never used — but my stance is the reverse: I’m setting aside the psychological comfort of the “official” version and basing my view on the actual textual habits of Jesus, the apostles, and the first‑century Jewish world, where the MT was neither dominant, authoritative, nor widely used. In short, I’m not defending the MT; I’m showing that its modern defenders rely on the same patterns you’ve identified, while the evidence points clearly to the Septuagint‑Syriac textual world of Jesus and the apostles.
 
OMC said:
In the Torah, restitution is always based on a fixed, objective value measured by set weights, not on the shifting worth of later coins or paper money. A “shekel” in Moses’ law wasn’t a coin but a specific weight of silver defined by the shekel of the sanctuary, which stayed constant even if rulers debased coins or changed monetary systems. So, if someone borrowed the value of “one hundred shekels” and agreed to repay “one hundred twenty shekels,” the repayment was tied to the original weight of silver, not whatever later passed as a shekel. The Torah bans dishonest weights and measures (Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13–15), meaning the fairness of the deal is built into the rules: repayment must match the value taken, by the same weight, no matter how currency is devalued or manipulated later. In short, repayment is about stable value, fixed at the time of borrowing, not altered by later monetary tricks.

Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist only makes sense if He expected John to recognize it as Scripture, since He confirmed His identity solely by pointing to prophetic fulfillment rather than personal reassurances. The signs He lists—blind seeing, lame walking, lepers cleansed, deaf hearing, dead raised, poor receiving good news—align with Isaiah in the Septuagint and Syriac traditions, not the later Masoretic Text, which lacks the same phrasing, order, and structure. This matches the pattern throughout the New Testament, which draws on the Septuagint for about two‑thirds of its quotations, the Syriac in many others, and never relies exclusively on the Masoretic Text, showing that Jesus and the apostles used the textual forms common in the first‑century Jewish world, not the later rabbinic canon. After 70 AD, the rabbis at Yavneh had political reasons to reject Greek and Syriac traditions—linked to anti‑Roman sentiment and growing Christian use—and to promote the lesser‑used Hebrew tradition as “official” to unify Jewish identity under Roman rule. The modern Masoretic canon, then, is not what Jesus used, not what the apostles quoted, and not what John would have recognized in Jesus’ Scriptural answer.

My critique of the Masoretic canon isn’t based on emotional attachment, institutional nostalgia, or psychological coping, but on textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. Jesus and the apostles largely used the Septuagint, early Jewish‑Christian communities drew from Syriac and Greek Isaiah, the NT never cites the MT, and the post‑70 AD rabbinic promotion of the proto‑Masoretic tradition was about political consolidation under Roman rule, not textual superiority. Modern defenses of the MT often follow the same self‑justifying logic you described — holding onto a familiar authority, overlooking its flaws, and retrofitting theological necessity onto a text Jesus never used — but my stance is the reverse: I’m setting aside the psychological comfort of the “official” version and basing my view on the actual textual habits of Jesus, the apostles, and the first‑century Jewish world, where the MT was neither dominant, authoritative, nor widely used. In short, I’m not defending the MT; I’m showing that its modern defenders rely on the same patterns you’ve identified, while the evidence points clearly to the Septuagint‑Syriac textual world of Jesus and the apostles.
Click to expand...
You have a slight math error. According to you, pre-devaluation of the currency, one was required to pay 24 units of silver (the designated coinage), plus 1/5 or 29.8 units of silver. Post-devaluation the requirement was 20 units of silver (the designated coinage) plus 1/5 or 24 units. You cannot invoke later rules at will. Should you wish to invoke a rule you must show that it was in effect at the appropriate time, not some subsequent time. Now in my version, pre-devaluation one was required to pay 24 units of silver and post-devaluation 20 units of silver plus 1/5 or 24 units of silver.

As for Jesus's response to John the Baptist, it occurs ONLY in the Syriac text, not in either the Masoretic or the Septuagint. Some modern translations now include it, but it is an addition. Similar modern additions also occur, usually with a footnote to saying something to the effect that some ancient manuscripts include this passage, concealing the fact that the official Masoretic Text excludes it. That a "virgin" will give birth is found ONLY in the Septuagint, not in either the Masoretic or the Syriac. That Jesus will be a Nazarene is also based on a passage that occurs ONLY in the Syriac. If you encounter it in your preferred translation, it is an addition to the official canon, and I believe that scripture says something about adding to or deducting from the text.

Now that gives you a problem, do you accept additions scripture from what you have decreed non-scriptural sources or do you claim that some things presented as fulfilling prophesies in the NT are presenting things that are not officially scripture, thus making the NT a transmitter of falsehoods. Note, my more relaxed understanding of scripture avoids this problem by recognizing human frailties and free will, but your insistence that God preserves scripture perfectly runs afoul of issues and in effect declares God a liar rather than laying the blame at the feet of fallible, free will humanity.

Howl away in protest, but until you can get around the issue of prophesies that are not in the official OT canon but are cited in the NT, and the basic math, your problem remains. no matter how much you protest.

Your argument seeks to avoid the issues and instead paper them over, which is an emotional reaction, not a scholarly one.
 
rewriter said:
One big problem is that grammar in the original languages is far too often guesswork. Punctuation was not common, especially in the Greek. Some verses can be translated with completely different meanings depending on how one assigns the grammar, while staying consistent with the known rules. Hebrews also has issues in that the vowel points were non-existent until the Masoretic text, which was late in the first millennium, and the exact vowels applied could change meanings. In short, we cannot get away from the opinions of the translators, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s also suprising that we think some internet classes or even a study of our own into Hebrew Greek ect is somehow going to make us better translators than the for instance 50 world renown translators that translated the kjv over years working in teams ect . They pretty much all have professional and well reputable translation teams already doing it in order to translate the words


somehow though if I do a quick six month study on Greek and Hebrew suddenly I’m going to be able to translate thousands of years of a constantly evolving thing like human language .

If we translated the ancient texts word for word no one would understand much of it at all and it would become pure guess work and lead to many rabbit holes

these lnguage experts dedicate thier lives to understanding the idea being spoken in an ancient language and translate the idea to be spoken in another language

The words and dialect even the order and placement of words doesn’t line up it’s done by translating the words but even more translating the concept of fact or idea that was being stated in one ancient language into a modern language that doesn’t use the same words , grammar , dialect ect

In the end God said he would send his words to the end of the world and reach all languages and peoples with his message of salvation ….and mysteriously there are bibles available just about all around the globe in many languages ect

There are wise Christian’s who understand gods word in Japan Europe Africa Australia ect Who have absolutely no idea how to read or write ancient Hebrew or Greek . They just accept the word being preached and read to them from the Bible and accept it receiving the lord who’s able to teach them as they seek his word


note also how much more peace and joy those folks have !
 
rewriter said:
You have a slight math error. According to you, pre-devaluation of the currency, one was required to pay 24 units of silver (the designated coinage), plus 1/5 or 29.8 units of silver. Post-devaluation the requirement was 20 units of silver (the designated coinage) plus 1/5 or 24 units. You cannot invoke later rules at will. Should you wish to invoke a rule you must show that it was in effect at the appropriate time, not some subsequent time. Now in my version, pre-devaluation one was required to pay 24 units of silver and post-devaluation 20 units of silver plus 1/5 or 24 units of silver.
Click to expand...

  • Requirement: 24 units of silver.
  • If a “plus one‑fifth” rule were applied to 24, the math would be:
15×24=4.8,24+4.8=28.8
Not 29.8. So my earlier 29.8 figure was simply incorrect arithmetic.
Thanks for pointing that out.
rewriter said:
As for Jesus's response to John the Baptist, it occurs ONLY in the Syriac text, not in either the Masoretic or the Septuagint. Some modern translations now include it, but it is an addition. Similar modern additions also occur, usually with a footnote to saying something to the effect that some ancient manuscripts include this passage, concealing the fact that the official Masoretic Text excludes it. That a "virgin" will give birth is found ONLY in the Septuagint, not in either the Masoretic or the Syriac. That Jesus will be a Nazarene is also based on a passage that occurs ONLY in the Syriac. If you encounter it in your preferred translation, it is an addition to the official canon, and I believe that scripture says something about adding to or deducting from the text
Click to expand...
You raise important textual‑critical points, but a few clarifications are in order. First, Jesus’s reply to John the Baptist in Matthew 11 isn’t taken from the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint, as the New Testament is referencing prophetic themes rather than a single verse.
The fuller list of signs you mention comes from the Syriac prophetic tradition, which doesn’t mean modern translations are “adding” to the Hebrew canon; it means Matthew is drawing from a different textual stream than the later Masoretic standard.
Second, the “virgin” prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 appears only in the Septuagint’s rendering, not in the Masoretic or Syriac, reflecting how Jewish translators in the 2nd century BC understood the Hebrew word almah.
Third, the statement that Jesus would be called a “Nazarene” isn’t a direct quote from a single verse in the Hebrew canon but a thematic summary, with one form preserved in the Syriac tradition.
When modern translations include these readings, they’re not changing the Masoretic Text; they’re simply translating the New Testament as it stands. The warnings in Deuteronomy about adding or subtracting apply to the Torah itself, not to the fact that the New Testament sometimes draws from textual traditions outside the later Masoretic standard.
rewriter said:
Now that gives you a problem, do you accept additions scripture from what you have decreed non-scriptural sources or do you claim that some things presented as fulfilling prophesies in the NT are presenting things that are not officially scripture, thus making the NT a transmitter of falsehoods. Note, my more relaxed understanding of scripture avoids this problem by recognizing human frailties and free will, but your insistence that God preserves scripture perfectly runs afoul of issues and in effect declares God a liar rather than laying the blame at the feet of fallible, free will humanity.
Click to expand...
The problem you describe only arises if one assumes that “Scripture” is limited to the later Masoretic Text and that God’s preservation must appear in one uniform manuscript tradition; once that assumption is questioned, the dilemma disappears. The New Testament writers were not adding non‑scriptural material or inventing prophecies—they were quoting and alluding to legitimate Jewish textual traditions that existed in the first century, including the Septuagint and Syriac prophetic forms, long before the Masoretic Text became the official standard. So the issue is not that the NT transmits falsehoods, but that later readers sometimes mistake the medieval Masoretic canon for the only valid form of the Old Testament. Your more flexible view, which recognizes human frailty in textual transmission, avoids accusing God of failure by acknowledging that variations arise from fallible scribes, not from divine error, whereas the rigid “perfect preservation in one text” model creates contradictions of its own making.
rewriter said:
Howl away in protest, but until you can get around the issue of prophesies that are not in the official OT canon but are cited in the NT, and the basic math, your problem remains. no matter how much you protest.

Your argument seeks to avoid the issues and instead paper them over, which is an emotional reaction, not a scholarly one.
Click to expand...
Your objection assumes that the later Masoretic Text is the only valid form of the Old Testament, but once you recognize that the New Testament quotes the legitimate Jewish textual traditions that existed in the first century—Septuagint, proto‑Masoretic, and Syriac—the supposed “problem” disappears because the NT is not adding prophecy or transmitting falsehoods, but citing Scripture as it actually existed before medieval standardization.
Your claim that I am “papering over the issues” is incorrect, because I am addressing the textual evidence directly—showing that your dilemma only exists if you assume the later Masoretic Text is the sole valid canon—so the charge of emotional avoidance simply does not apply.
 
Pilgrimshope said:
Yeah it’s also suprising that we think some internet classes or even a study of our own into Hebrew Greek ect is somehow going to make us better translators than the for instance 50 world renown translators that translated the kjv over years working in teams ect . They pretty much all have professional and well reputable translation teams already doing it in order to translate the words


somehow though if I do a quick six month study on Greek and Hebrew suddenly I’m going to be able to translate thousands of years of a constantly evolving thing like human language .

If we translated the ancient texts word for word no one would understand much of it at all and it would become pure guess work and lead to many rabbit holes

these lnguage experts dedicate thier lives to understanding the idea being spoken in an ancient language and translate the idea to be spoken in another language

The words and dialect even the order and placement of words doesn’t line up it’s done by translating the words but even more translating the concept of fact or idea that was being stated in one ancient language into a modern language that doesn’t use the same words , grammar , dialect ect

In the end God said he would send his words to the end of the world and reach all languages and peoples with his message of salvation ….and mysteriously there are bibles available just about all around the globe in many languages ect

There are wise Christian’s who understand gods word in Japan Europe Africa Australia ect Who have absolutely no idea how to read or write ancient Hebrew or Greek . They just accept the word being preached and read to them from the Bible and accept it receiving the lord who’s able to teach them as they seek his word


note also how much more peace and joy those folks have !
Click to expand...
Your appeal to the authority of translation committees doesn’t address the actual issue, because the question isn’t whether scholars are competent but whether their interpretive choices can be examined and tested against the underlying texts, and dismissing that scrutiny as naïve simply avoids the scholarly discussion rather than engaging it
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
OMC said:
  • Requirement: 24 units of silver.
  • If a “plus one‑fifth” rule were applied to 24, the math would be:
15×24=4.8,24+4.8=28.8
Not 29.8. So my earlier 29.8 figure was simply incorrect arithmetic.
Thanks for pointing that out.

You raise important textual‑critical points, but a few clarifications are in order. First, Jesus’s reply to John the Baptist in Matthew 11 isn’t taken from the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint, as the New Testament is referencing prophetic themes rather than a single verse.
The fuller list of signs you mention comes from the Syriac prophetic tradition, which doesn’t mean modern translations are “adding” to the Hebrew canon; it means Matthew is drawing from a different textual stream than the later Masoretic standard.
Second, the “virgin” prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 appears only in the Septuagint’s rendering, not in the Masoretic or Syriac, reflecting how Jewish translators in the 2nd century BC understood the Hebrew word almah.
Third, the statement that Jesus would be called a “Nazarene” isn’t a direct quote from a single verse in the Hebrew canon but a thematic summary, with one form preserved in the Syriac tradition.
When modern translations include these readings, they’re not changing the Masoretic Text; they’re simply translating the New Testament as it stands. The warnings in Deuteronomy about adding or subtracting apply to the Torah itself, not to the fact that the New Testament sometimes draws from textual traditions outside the later Masoretic standard.

The problem you describe only arises if one assumes that “Scripture” is limited to the later Masoretic Text and that God’s preservation must appear in one uniform manuscript tradition; once that assumption is questioned, the dilemma disappears. The New Testament writers were not adding non‑scriptural material or inventing prophecies—they were quoting and alluding to legitimate Jewish textual traditions that existed in the first century, including the Septuagint and Syriac prophetic forms, long before the Masoretic Text became the official standard. So the issue is not that the NT transmits falsehoods, but that later readers sometimes mistake the medieval Masoretic canon for the only valid form of the Old Testament. Your more flexible view, which recognizes human frailty in textual transmission, avoids accusing God of failure by acknowledging that variations arise from fallible scribes, not from divine error, whereas the rigid “perfect preservation in one text” model creates contradictions of its own making.

Your objection assumes that the later Masoretic Text is the only valid form of the Old Testament, but once you recognize that the New Testament quotes the legitimate Jewish textual traditions that existed in the first century—Septuagint, proto‑Masoretic, and Syriac—the supposed “problem” disappears because the NT is not adding prophecy or transmitting falsehoods, but citing Scripture as it actually existed before medieval standardization.
Your claim that I am “papering over the issues” is incorrect, because I am addressing the textual evidence directly—showing that your dilemma only exists if you assume the later Masoretic Text is the sole valid canon—so the charge of emotional avoidance simply does not apply.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. If, as you claim, ONLY the Masoretic Text is the "proper" scripture, then any other tradition is improper. This is especially true with the Septuagint where the translators of Isaiah apparently made purposeful changes to the Hebrew, changing clear meaning in Hebrew to something totally different in Greek. Their decision to translate the term for "young woman" to "virgin" would appear to have far more in common with the Greek culture that accepted virgin birth as signifying a special person's birth than any intent to correctly translate the Hebrew.

But again, IF one specific source for scripture is the correct one, then by definition, all others must be incorrect. You cannot have it both ways, either there are multiple different scriptural traditions presenting varying degrees of emphasis on various points, or there is one correct scriptural tradition and all others are false. But if there are multiple acceptable lines, then you lose God's specific protection and instead have humanity's free will intervening, and God allowing it to intervene, changing God's word and removing absolute certainty as the original message might well have been distorted at some point in time in history.

As for the math, no matter if I made a mistake, the point remains, either the amount of silver due remained the same both before and after the devaluation of the coinage to which the quantity referred, or it decreased with the change in valuation. If the required amount of silver remained the same it means that scripture was adjusted, if it was decreased, you place human political decisions as proper for correcting God's commandments. One way humans change commands from God and the other way, humans change commands from God. Now which change do you choose to support? One way indicates that the ancient Jews held the amount of silver given to be the important point, regardless of human opinion, in the other, human opinion dictates what is appropriate to give.
 
rewriter said:
You miss the point. If, as you claim, ONLY the Masoretic Text is the "proper" scripture, then any other tradition is improper. This is especially true with the Septuagint where the translators of Isaiah apparently made purposeful changes to the Hebrew, changing clear meaning in Hebrew to something totally different in Greek. Their decision to translate the term for "young woman" to "virgin" would appear to have far more in common with the Greek culture that accepted virgin birth as signifying a special person's birth than any intent to correctly translate the Hebrew
Click to expand...
According to Scripture, your conclusion doesn’t hold, because the issue in Isaiah 7:14 is not “Masoretic only vs. Septuagint corruption,” but how God Himself unfolds a single prophecy across languages and time—Hebrew ʿalmāh (“young woman”) legitimately describes the historical sign to Ahaz, while the Spirit‑guided Septuagint’s parthenos (“virgin”) rightly captures the messianic depth of that same verse, which Matthew then cites of Christ (Matthew 1:23), so the Greek is not a pagan intrusion but a providential, Christ‑centered reading of the Hebrew, not an “improper tradition” competing with it
rewriter said:
But again, IF one specific source for scripture is the correct one, then by definition, all others must be incorrect. You cannot have it both ways, either there are multiple different scriptural traditions presenting varying degrees of emphasis on various points, or there is one correct scriptural tradition and all others are false. But if there are multiple acceptable lines, then you lose God's specific protection and instead have humanity's free will intervening, and God allowing it to intervene, changing God's word and removing absolute certainty as the original message might well have been distorted at some point in time in history.
Click to expand...
According to Scripture, preservation is not “one perfect human tradition or total corruption,” but God safeguarding His words across multiple witnesses (Psalm 12:6–7), which is why Jesus and the apostles freely used differing textual lines—including the Septuagint—without losing certainty, because divine preservation rests on God’s sovereignty, not on the uniformity of human scribes or the exclusivity of one manuscript tradition.
rewriter said:
As for the math, no matter if I made a mistake, the point remains, either the amount of silver due remained the same both before and after the devaluation of the coinage to which the quantity referred, or it decreased with the change in valuation. If the required amount of silver remained the same it means that scripture was adjusted, if it was decreased, you place human political decisions as proper for correcting God's commandments. One way humans change commands from God and the other way, humans change commands from God. Now which change do you choose to support? One way indicates that the ancient Jews held the amount of silver given to be the important point, regardless of human opinion, in the other, human opinion dictates what is appropriate to give
Click to expand...
Your dilemma collapses once you recognize that Scripture anchors restitution to God’s fixed weight, not to human‑controlled currency, meaning the shekel in the Law is a unit of silver by weight—not a coin whose value rises or falls—so the commanded amount never changed, no political decision ever “corrected” God’s command, and no adjustment to Scripture was needed; the only thing that changed was human coinage, while God’s standard remained exactly what He established from the beginning.
 
OMC said:
Your appeal to the authority of translation committees doesn’t address the actual issue, because the question isn’t whether scholars are competent but whether their interpretive choices can be examined and tested against the underlying texts, and dismissing that scrutiny as naïve simply avoids the scholarly discussion rather than engaging it
Click to expand...
Naw my point was pretty simple I thought I trust that god was able to fulfill what he said it’s not man we need to trust but God
 
rewriter said:
You miss the point. If, as you claim, ONLY the Masoretic Text is the "proper" scripture, then any other tradition is improper. This is especially true with the Septuagint where the translators of Isaiah apparently made purposeful changes to the Hebrew, changing clear meaning in Hebrew to something totally different in Greek. Their decision to translate the term for "young woman" to "virgin" would appear to have far more in common with the Greek culture that accepted virgin birth as signifying a special person's birth than any intent to correctly translate the Hebrew.

But again, IF one specific source for scripture is the correct one, then by definition, all others must be incorrect. You cannot have it both ways, either there are multiple different scriptural traditions presenting varying degrees of emphasis on various points, or there is one correct scriptural tradition and all others are false. But if there are multiple acceptable lines, then you lose God's specific protection and instead have humanity's free will intervening, and God allowing it to intervene, changing God's word and removing absolute certainty as the original message might well have been distorted at some point in time in history.

As for the math, no matter if I made a mistake, the point remains, either the amount of silver due remained the same both before and after the devaluation of the coinage to which the quantity referred, or it decreased with the change in valuation. If the required amount of silver remained the same it means that scripture was adjusted, if it was decreased, you place human political decisions as proper for correcting God's commandments. One way humans change commands from God and the other way, humans change commands from God. Now which change do you choose to support? One way indicates that the ancient Jews held the amount of silver given to be the important point, regardless of human opinion, in the other, human opinion dictates what is appropriate to give.
rewriter said:
You miss the point. If, as you claim, ONLY the Masoretic Text is the "proper" scripture, then any other tradition is improper. This is especially true with the Septuagint where the translators of Isaiah apparently made purposeful changes to the Hebrew, changing clear meaning in Hebrew to something totally different in Greek. Their decision to translate the term for "young woman" to "virgin" would appear to have far more in common with the Greek culture that accepted virgin birth as signifying a special person's birth than any intent to correctly translate the Hebrew.

But again, IF one specific source for scripture is the correct one, then by definition, all others must be incorrect. You cannot have it both ways, either there are multiple different scriptural traditions presenting varying degrees of emphasis on various points, or there is one correct scriptural tradition and all others are false. But if there are multiple acceptable lines, then you lose God's specific protection and instead have humanity's free will intervening, and God allowing it to intervene, changing God's word and removing absolute certainty as the original message might well have been distorted at some point in time in history.

As for the math, no matter if I made a mistake, the point remains, either the amount of silver due remained the same both before and after the devaluation of the coinage to which the quantity referred, or it decreased with the change in valuation. If the required amount of silver remained the same it means that scripture was adjusted, if it was decreased, you place human political decisions as proper for correcting God's commandments. One way humans change commands from God and the other way, humans change commands from God. Now which change do you choose to support? One way indicates that the ancient Jews held the amount of silver given to be the important point, regardless of human opinion, in the other, human opinion dictates what is appropriate to give.
Click to expand...
it’s just an argument really two scholars will argue to the end about the placement and meaning of words or which texts are the better ones ect imagine God hid his word so only language experts who dove into ancient Hebrew and Greek could understand it . Instead he’s made it open and plain and available in many languages because we speak many
Click to expand...
 
Pilgrimshope said:
Naw my point was pretty simple I thought I trust that god was able to fulfill what he said it’s not man we need to trust but God
Click to expand...
Your statement that you “trust God, not man” doesn’t actually address the argument, because the question has never been whether God is trustworthy—He is—but whether God expects His people to test human claims about His Word against the underlying texts He gave, and Scripture itself commands that scrutiny: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), meaning appealing to “trusting God” cannot be used as a shield against examining translation choices, because trusting God includes obeying His requirement to test, examine, and verify what men produce in His name rather than dismissing that examination as unnecessary or unspiritual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back