SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

(05-21-2009 05:07 AM)Strefanash Wrote: [ -> ]I hope you spotted the irony in the last post.

these people are exploiting the fact that languages can NEVER be translated word for word. But then they dont have to be. if adequate translation can not be done then so englishman can ever talk to a frenchman etc

HR is waving a straw man about (ie a misrepresentation of how language and translation works).

I doubt very much that they are honest about this

I don't think the goal was to be honest, but rather to sell their own versions as truth. Unless one changes how the NT is translated, and some of the OT, to fit their theologies, the whole system will crumble in a heap of nonsense

I also do not believe that Jesus used the LXX. The LXX that people use to day to "prove" that He and the disciples quoted it is not even close to the one found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The LXX has gone through 4 recentions since the first century and none of them match each other with any consistency.

When one compares the Greek text and finds different wording than the Hebrew, it is assumed that Jesus quoted from the LXX because it matches quite well. The problem is that the 4th recention is used for this purpose. The scholars, who have studied in-depth on this issue, concur that the LXX was "smoothed" to match the NT, not the other way around.

The LXX has an interesting history, none-the-less. The only part that was translated by the Jews was the first five books [as a necessity due to the proliferation of Greek]. The other translators are unknown.

Funny, God COULD have used Hebrew but He Didn't.

NT Greek is interesting. Itt is not exactly Classical Greek. But it is not a Translation from Hebrew likt the Septuagint was.

It reads like a Hebrew Thinker writing in Greek as a Second Language. By the Original Authors.

Had the Originals been Hebrew then a Greek scribe would have been used to translate them and they would have read like Classical Greek.

God used Aramaic in Daniel not because it was better but because it was dealing with Gentiles and that was their language. Some of the Dreams were actually those had by an Aramaic Gentile (Nebuchadnezzar).

Hmm, The NT is written to Gentiles! Has to be in Greek then!

Another interesting note:

Genesis 1-11 do not read like Classical Hebrew. They read like Sumerian tablets translated into Hebrew (hmmm by Moses perhaps). they have colophones which the rest of the OT does not.

(01-29-2010 02:32 PM)Scotchman Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, God COULD have used Hebrew but He Didn't.

NT Greek is interesting. Itt is not exactly Classical Greek. But it is not a Translation from Hebrew likt the Septuagint was.

It reads like a Hebrew Thinker writing in Greek as a Second Language. By the Original Authors.

Had the Originals been Hebrew then a Greek scribe would have been used to translate them and they would have read like Classical Greek.

God used Aramaic in Daniel not because it was better but because it was dealing with Gentiles and that was their language. Some of the Dreams were actually those had by an Aramaic Gentile (Nebuchadnezzar).

Hmm, The NT is written to Gentiles! Has to be in Greek then!

Another interesting note:

Genesis 1-11 do not read like Classical Hebrew. They read like Sumerian tablets translated into Hebrew (hmmm by Moses perhaps). they have colophones which the rest of the OT does not.

I did not say the NT was written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. Koine Greek. The LXX NT was written way later. It is not the same thing as the Byzantine/TR.

Moses did not know Hebrew, which is probably why it sounds sumerian He did speak Egyptian, though. Hebrew was not a language until about 900 BCE. The Bible was originally written in proto-canaanite/akkadian [until about 900BCE] - the precursor for all languages. Imagine that, God used a pagan language to write down His Holy Words

Actually there are many loan words in the OT like Aramaic, Arabic, Egyptian, Chaldean, Greek, and Latin

(01-30-2010 12:46 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]I did not say the NT was written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. Koine Greek. The LXX NT was written way later. It is not the same thing as the Byzantine/TR.

Uh Excuse me? The LXX was written before Christ and was quoted in the NT in a few spots (3 or 4) in preference to the MT for those passages. God knows why.

Various sections of the LXX texts have been found in the DSS and other Archaeology digs confirming their existance and common usage in the first century. Primarily outside Israel and is why the Greek was used for the NT as it was the "lingua franca" and allowed for the widest dispersal.

I never claimed the NT was written in Hebrew but DID say it shows evidence of written in a hebrew mindset by native Sabras who only knew Greek as a second language. This is clear in the grammer.

I highly recommend people to take any Archaeology study or study in Hebrew and Greek in a systematic way. It is what the old Christian Scholars use to do just as a matter of course. Sadly it is neglected today.

Too many people would like to learn the Bible from movies or other preachers" instead of searching for themselves.

These two verse should be posted in every church!

Acts 17:11 Receive the word with readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, "You do Err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."


I only know 2 ministries which promote them. And terribly BOTH are Arminian!



Don't worry, it is not name calling... They freely brag about it!