1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Psalm 12 Revisited

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 8, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Click here: Detroit
     
    #21 Askjo, Dec 22, 2003
  2. Phil310

    Phil310 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read in the book "One Bible Only?" that the Septuagint was most likely the Bible that Jesus read from. Is this true? and how can we know for sure? :confused:

    Phil310
     
    #22 Phil310, Dec 22, 2003
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is more likely that Christ quoted the paleo-Hebrew text as discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems to have been the basis of the LXX (they read so much alike the non-Masoretic Hebrew is often called the "Septuagint-like" Hebrew text) which explains why the NT quotes seem more like the LXX than the MT.
     
    #23 skanwmatos, Dec 22, 2003
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    No one really knows what "bible" Jesus used. One thing is pretty consistent though - when the NT authors quote the OT they usually use the LXX (septuagint) version - often verbatim. Consider Luke 4:18 in which Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1. His quote is definitely from the LXX and not the BHS (Hebrew scriptures). This tends to be the pattern throughout the NT. Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic (as evidenced by some sayings - Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani - definitely very Aramaic) but probably used whatever "bible" was in use in the synagogue - which was quite possibly Greek. Remember after the exile many of the Jews had forgotten (or never learned) Hebrew.

    Several things should be noted:

    1. Many (if not most) Christians in the late 1st century could not read Hebrew so we could say that the evangelists intentionally used Greek - style quotes. This seems a little unlikely to me.

    2. The Septuagint dates to about 250 B.C. (some parts a little later). The oldest intact Hebrew manuscripts we have (BHS) date to about 1000-1300 A.D. Thus the LXX was translated from a Hebrew original which may have been different from the BHS. Jeremiah and Daniel have some substantial differences from the BHS.

    3. Although (probably) none of us would consider the LXX to be the inspired word of God it is useful for study since it shows us what (at least some) Jews thought about the meaning of scripture during the second temple period. ;)
     
    #24 Charles Meadows, Dec 22, 2003
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Askjo - you make a condemnatory statement attributed to a Central prof. Would appreciate the facts. I cannot envision ANY seminary prof saying that a translation of the Word of God into a foreign tongue must be from the KJV (and not the inspired Greek/Hebrew)

    The, you link to "Detroit" and the implication that someone THERE is on "only". But instead it is a slanted "seminary" (so-called) condemning Detroit.

    You are intentionally misleading, but this is not unexpected. :rolleyes:
     
    #25 Dr. Bob, Dec 22, 2003
  6. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (about 440 BC) there existed a 'Vorlage Text' of the Old Testament in paleo-Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated from the Vorlage Text about 250 BC. The Masoretic Hebrew was re-written at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD.

    The similarity of the NT quotes of the OT to the LXX are due to the base text of the LXX being the Vorlage text.
     
    #26 skanwmatos, Dec 22, 2003
  7. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean like saying the "commonly received text" did not exist until 1633? Can you say "double standard?"
     
    #27 skanwmatos, Dec 22, 2003
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually it is exactly what is happening in the USA today. 100 years ago EVERY educated man could read Greek and Latin. Today? 1 in 100. But they ALL read English. So there are a great number of translations taking the unknown text and intentionally making English-style quotes.

    Hence, the Message, NIV, et al

    My study of late in the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) shows some major differences in the Hebrew text of the 2nd Temple era and that which has come down through the Masoretes in AD 1000. Agree with you.

    I would. The LXX was a faithful translation into the common language from the original Hebrew. It is not always the "best", but it IS the Word of God. If not, then every LXX quotation in the NT is blasphemy.
     
    #28 Dr. Bob, Dec 22, 2003
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you were the President of the Seminary, for example, will you allow any professors, who do not believe in the Word of God, work for you?
     
    #29 Askjo, Dec 22, 2003
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Arno Weniger was a frequent guest instructor at a college I attended in East Peoria, IL when he pastored in Normal, IL. The college was quite KJVO and even Baptist-bride in philosophy. So much so that I didn't even last long there. So, it seems that he at least "tolerated" these "extreme" philosophies.
     
    #30 Pastor_Bob, Dec 22, 2003
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. And your point is?
     
    #31 Dr. Bob, Dec 23, 2003
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He was a premier politician, for sure. Don't know too many who were as EXTREME as that bunch in Peoria! I know I would not have entered the door, much less spoken, but Bud Weniger was President of Amer. Association of Christian Schools as well as Pastor at Calvary. Lots of fence mending and glad-handing.

    When he followed B Myron Cedarholm as President of Maranatha BBC everyone expected him to roll into the same mold - Cedarholm was very pro TR and even had the Dean Burgon Society meet on campus. But they were AND STILL ARE, PTL, still very ANTI-KJVO and would be the chart fit inbetween 1&2.

    Amazing that any school that emphasizes theology and study of original languages could ever drift into "onlyism".
     
    #32 Dr. Bob, Dec 23, 2003
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. </font>[/QUOTE]A good boy! :D
     
    #33 Askjo, Dec 23, 2003
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No.
    Thank you. And would not allow a liberal like a KJVOnly to teach either. More insidious attack on the Word of God than the open unbeliever.
     
    #34 Dr. Bob, Dec 24, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...