Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could you elaborate on that? Or link to prior posts? The DSS contain versions of Jewish scriptures that in general are quite close to the Masoretic Text. They contain nothing about the New Testament, which is the primary basis of Christian belief. So I am not sure how this relates to the present discussion.
Is.61:7-9
KJV
Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.......
DSS
instead of your shame (you will receive ) double, and instead of dishonor they will rejoice in YOUR lot.
therefore YOU will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be YOURS.
For I love justice and I hate robbery and iniquity; I will faithfully give YOU your reward and make an everlasting covenant with YOU.
YOUR descendant will be known among the nations and YOUR offspring among the people......
This set of scripture CHANGES to who God will make an everlasting covenant, from theirs to yours and from them to you. That is MORE then just a spelling error it changes a whole doctrine.
here's another one that changes a whole doctrine.
Deu.8:6 KJV
“Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him
DSS
And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in all His ways and by LOVING Him.
Changed from fear to love.
I could go on and on but this should suffice to show everyone that it is NOT just spelling mistakes.
Hogwash mike, I have shown you a few times now that the dead sea scrolls show a difference that changes ones doctrinal thinking. So these so called experts on textual criticism must have their head buried deep in the mud because everyone can easily see the difference by just getting a copy of the dead sea scrolls.
These textual critics are talking about the New Testament manuscripts. Not the Old Testament. Therefore your attempt to discredit their expertise is mute.
Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.......
DSS
instead of your shame (you will receive ) double, and instead of dishonor they will rejoice in YOUR lot.
therefore YOU will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be YOURS.
For I love justice and I hate robbery and iniquity; I will faithfully give YOU your reward and make an everlasting covenant with YOU.
YOUR descendant will be known among the nations and YOUR offspring among the people......
This set of scripture CHANGES to who God will make an everlasting covenant, from theirs to yours and from them to you. That is MORE then just a spelling error it changes a whole doctrine.
here's another one that changes a whole doctrine.
Deu.8:6 KJV
“Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him
DSS
And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in all His ways and by LOVING Him.
Changed from fear to love.
I could go on and on but this should suffice to show everyone that it is NOT just spelling mistakes.
As stated in the last post, you are attempting to discredit New Testament textual criticism by referring to Old Testament documents. The issue is the New Testament documents.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-21-2014 at 10:10 PM..
Could you elaborate on that? Or link to prior posts? The DSS contain versions of Jewish scriptures that in general are quite close to the Masoretic Text. They contain nothing about the New Testament, which is the primary basis of Christian belief. So I am not sure how this relates to the present discussion.
Yes. The subject is Textual criticism as it relates to the New Testament manuscripts. Not the Old Testament. Pneuma is off topic.
Could you elaborate on that? Or link to prior posts? The DSS contain versions of Jewish scriptures that in general are quite close to the Masoretic Text. They contain nothing about the New Testament, which is the primary basis of Christian belief. So I am not sure how this relates to the present discussion.
When you consider the number of times that parts of the OT are quoted, or claimed to be quoted in the NT, it is a legitimate part of textual criticism. Because a good percentage of those quotes are misquotes and in some cases we can't even find what they are claiming anywhere in the OT. Even one of the gospels has Jesus claiming something form the OT and yet no record of it is anywhere in the OT.
Did the author of the gospel get it wrong? Did Jesus not have a good understanding of scripture?
But regarding a "separation" of OT and NT with regard to textual criticism, it's simply not possible. Consider the statistics---
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar's work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 (Roger Nicole, The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617).
Compare those figures to the number of times other writers are quoted in the New Testament: four . The apostles quoted the Old Testament 695 times , but other writers only four times . Of the 27 books and letters forming the New Testament, 21 quote the Old. The only ones that don't directly quote the Old Testament are the six shortest-Titus, Philemon, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. However, Titus, 1 John, 3 John and Jude allude to Old Testament personalities or passages.
The way modern Bibles are organized, there are 39 books in the Old Testament. Of these 39 books, only nine are not quoted in the New Testament. However, since the Hebrew Bible has long organized these books differently than they appear in modern Bibles, and some of these nine were originally combined with and part of other books, in reality only five of the Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament.
Some assume that the five books of Moses are obsolete, as they focus so heavily on laws supposedly annulled by Jesus Christ. However, these same five books are quoted at least 245 times and referred to many more. Paul, the apostle who some believe taught that the law contained in these five books is done away, quoted from those books between 70 and 110 times -more than any other New Testament figure. Jesus Christ quoted from these same books about 60 times.
So to state that textual criticism is only of the NT and excludes the Old, is simply showing a lack of how the NT personalities were influenced by the OT. And that is a very valid subject of textual criticism.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-22-2014 at 03:17 AM..
When you consider the number of times that parts of the OT are quoted, or claimed to be quoted in the NT, it is a legitimate part of textual criticism. Because a good percentage of those quotes are misquotes and in some cases we can't even find what they are claiming anywhere in the OT. Even one of the gospels has Jesus claiming something form the OT and yet no record of it is anywhere in the OT.
Did the author of the gospel get it wrong? Did Jesus not have a good understanding of scripture?
Matthew 3:3 versus Isaiah 40:3
Matthew 12:17-21 versus Isaiah 42:1-4
Matthew 13:35 versus Psalm 78:1-3
Acts 2:16-21 versus Joel 2:28-32
Acts 7:43 versus Amos 5:25-27
Romans 3:4 versus Psalm 51:4
Romans 9:33 versus Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14
Romans 10:6-8 versus Deuteronomy 30:12-14
Romans 11:9-10 versus Psalm 69:22-23
Romans 11:26-27 versus Isaiah 59:20-21
1 Corinthians 2:9 versus Isaiah 64:4
1 Corinthians 3:20 versus Psalm 94:11
1 Corinthians 15:54-55 versus Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14
Hebrews 2:7 versus Psalm 8:5
In a few cases the explanation might be that the author of the NT book/letter was copying from a Septuagint version of the OT rather than directly from a Hebrew version of scripture. Makes it a preservation issue with regard to scripture--and very pointedly illustrates that the very writers of the NT were prone to error by translation also.
I'm going to have to re-read some of my resources to find exactly where Jesus has His misquote---pretty sure it's in John, and that would make sense as John is so much further removed in time and purpose than the synoptic gospels.
As a post-script--the misquote or at very best "loose" paraphrase of the OT by Jesus is in John 7:38, "Whosoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'streams of living water will flow from within him.'" There have been numerous attempts to "explain" how this is a reference, not a direct quote, but one would think that the author of John might have gone to the trouble of "correcting" Jesus' comment to fit it to one of the several "references" conservative scholars say it alludes to, which usually include Isaiah 44:3, Isaiah 55:1, Isaiah 58:11, Zechariah 14:8, Jeremiah 2:13, and Jeremiah 17:13. Since they are numerous, but none exact--really not even close to exact--just alluding to the same idea,--- in the minds of infallible, inerrantists it is not a mistake, just another opportunity to make up a story which said story then becomes just as holy as scripture because the story "explains" the fact that it isn't a direct quote. So God-breathed explanatory stories are alive and well today!
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-22-2014 at 04:02 AM..
Matthew 3:3 versus Isaiah 40:3
Matthew 12:17-21 versus Isaiah 42:1-4
Matthew 13:35 versus Psalm 78:1-3
Acts 2:16-21 versus Joel 2:28-32
Acts 7:43 versus Amos 5:25-27
Romans 3:4 versus Psalm 51:4
Romans 9:33 versus Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14
Romans 10:6-8 versus Deuteronomy 30:12-14
Romans 11:9-10 versus Psalm 69:22-23
Romans 11:26-27 versus Isaiah 59:20-21
1 Corinthians 2:9 versus Isaiah 64:4
1 Corinthians 3:20 versus Psalm 94:11
1 Corinthians 15:54-55 versus Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14
Hebrews 2:7 versus Psalm 8:5
In a few cases the explanation might be that the author of the NT book/letter was copying from a Septuagint version of the OT rather than directly from a Hebrew version of scripture. Makes it a preservation issue with regard to scripture--and very pointedly illustrates that the very writers of the NT were prone to error by translation also.
I'm going to have to re-read some of my resources to find exactly where Jesus has His misquote---pretty sure it's in John, and that would make sense as John is so much further removed in time and purpose than the synoptic gospels.
As a post-script--the misquote or at very best "loose" paraphrase of the OT by Jesus is in John 7:38, "Whosoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'streams of living water will flow from within him.'" There have been numerous attempts to "explain" how this is a reference, not a direct quote, but one would think that the author of John might have gone to the trouble of "correcting" Jesus' comment to fit it to one of the several "references" conservative scholars say it alludes to, which usually include Isaiah 44:3, Isaiah 55:1, Isaiah 58:11, Zechariah 14:8, Jeremiah 2:13, and Jeremiah 17:13. Since they are numerous, but none exact--really not even close to exact--just alluding to the same idea,--- in the minds of infallible, inerrantists it is not a mistake, just another opportunity to make up a story which said story then becomes just as holy as scripture because the story "explains" the fact that it isn't a direct quote. So God-breathed explanatory stories are alive and well today!
As stated in the last post, you are attempting to discredit New Testament textual criticism by referring to Old Testament documents. The issue is the New Testament documents.
Just like before mike you duck and run. You have no answer to it so you close your eyes to it which is not a good way to learn anything.
When you consider the number of times that parts of the OT are quoted, or claimed to be quoted in the NT, it is a legitimate part of textual criticism. Because a good percentage of those quotes are misquotes and in some cases we can't even find what they are claiming anywhere in the OT. Even one of the gospels has Jesus claiming something form the OT and yet no record of it is anywhere in the OT.
Did the author of the gospel get it wrong? Did Jesus not have a good understanding of scripture?
But regarding a "separation" of OT and NT with regard to textual criticism, it's simply not possible. Consider the statistics---
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar's work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 (Roger Nicole, The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617).
Compare those figures to the number of times other writers are quoted in the New Testament: four . The apostles quoted the Old Testament 695 times , but other writers only four times . Of the 27 books and letters forming the New Testament, 21 quote the Old. The only ones that don't directly quote the Old Testament are the six shortest-Titus, Philemon, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. However, Titus, 1 John, 3 John and Jude allude to Old Testament personalities or passages.
The way modern Bibles are organized, there are 39 books in the Old Testament. Of these 39 books, only nine are not quoted in the New Testament. However, since the Hebrew Bible has long organized these books differently than they appear in modern Bibles, and some of these nine were originally combined with and part of other books, in reality only five of the Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament.
Some assume that the five books of Moses are obsolete, as they focus so heavily on laws supposedly annulled by Jesus Christ. However, these same five books are quoted at least 245 times and referred to many more. Paul, the apostle who some believe taught that the law contained in these five books is done away, quoted from those books between 70 and 110 times -more than any other New Testament figure. Jesus Christ quoted from these same books about 60 times.
So to state that textual criticism is only of the NT and excludes the Old, is simply showing a lack of how the NT personalities were influenced by the OT. And that is a very valid subject of textual criticism.
Exactly, and mike knows this but will continue to duck and run because he has NO answer to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
