Is the Lord Jesus or Heavenly Father?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Quote

 

VideoGameJunkie said:

Am I allowed to ask this question or is it against board rules? Who is represented as the Lord at the veil? Heavenly Father or Jesus?

 

It may be against board rules, but I will answer.  It's Jehovah - whoever you believe that to be.

Which begs the question.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I believe Jehovah is pre earth Jesus.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, volgadon said:

That is OK, I was fairly certain that this was the first you've heard of multiple Masoretic schools anyway. I do fund your claim very bizarre that Jews seem to prefer the LXX. Unless they are academically-minded, most have probably never used it. Most use the MT, and that certainly holds true for Genesis 3. I know of no current group of Jews that uses the Septuagint in the synagogue. Sorry, you keep coming up with bad argument after bad argument.

I'm just responding to you, and another I have run across on boards. Perhaps you do not consider yourself to be a Jew. But you seem to be promoting the Septuagint over the MT.

I am glad to hear that in your opinion most Jews use the MT. Case closed. Judgment in favor of the MT.

[volgadon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I'm just responding to you, and another I have run across on boards. Perhaps you do not consider yourself to be a Jew. But you seem to be promoting the Septuagint over the MT.

I am glad to hear that in your opinion most Jews use the MT. Case closed. Judgment in favor of the MT.

I see, prone to exaggeration and overgeneralization. I'm not promoting any textual family over another (there go your wild imaginings again), I'm saying that the LXX cannot simply be dismissed as a bad translation. It is old, and reflects some of the textual families in the DSS. That the majority of Jews use the MT proves nothing that you wish to prove (plus it shows how divorced from reality your claim of them being scared of christological implications of the Masoretic Genesis 3 is). As for me personally, I'm Israeli and ethnically Jewish, but LDS. Your assumptions are golden, Lucius.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, volgadon said:

I see, prone to exaggeration and overgeneralization. I'm not promoting any textual family over another (there go your wild imaginings again), I'm saying that the LXX cannot simply be dismissed as a bad translation. It is old, and reflects some of the textual families in the DSS. That the majority of Jews use the MT proves nothing that you wish to prove (plus it shows how divorced from reality your claim of them being scared of christological implications of the Masoretic Genesis 3 is). As for me personally, I'm Israeli and ethnically Jewish, but LDS. Your assumptions are golden, Lucius.

Do you have a bear in this fight, or do you just enjoy attacking me for defending the MT? I get that you apparently don't like me. I am merely defending my stance that the MT is the best version of the Tanakh we have. In this case (Jeremiah) the KJV happens to agree with it. I have never said the LXX can "simply be dismissed as a bad translation" nor that it does not reflect "some of the textual families in the DSS," but hey, thanks for YOUR assumptions bud. All I have been saying all along is that I value the MT the most, as essentially the most accurate version of the OT we have. I have not claimed it to be perfect. But I do find many faults in the LXX in comparison to the MT. And for me personally, to throw out the MT based on the Septuagint alone is not gonna fly. I've asked for other corroborating evidence that the general reading of the MT is wrong, and the best anyone has come up with is the Septuagint version. Again, sorry that won't fly with me. So you can keep playing your little mind games if you want, but it won't change these facts. But feel free to show which version of the MT disagrees with me here and what relevance it had to this conversation at all for you to even bring it up. And hey, you don't have to believe the MT if you don't want. I happen to place the most weight on it. And I require more than one other corroborating source to dismiss it. I asked about the "Samaritan texts" and got no response from anyone. No one has come to defend the Targums either. That leaves the MT and the Septuagint, and I come down in favor of the MT and in this case it is corroborated by the KJV and JS made no changes to this verse in the JST. Again case closed. Judgment for the MT. Thanks for playing. 

PS. and just so you know I have Jewish blood too, so this is not an ethnic issue. You may wish to consider your assumptions....

[Calm]

I don't see volgadon attacking you personally, but attacking your claims and methodology at making those claims.  I think it would help if you didn't go to "you don't like me".

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/9/2016 at 2:04 AM, RevTestament said:

By "old Greek" I presume you mean the Septuagint? While I do believe it has value as a corroborating text, I find it to be highly flawed, and therefore not dependable as a sole source of "original text" as you put it.

I did not speak of the LXX as the "sole source of 'original text'."  I reject the idea of any original text for the Bible generally, since the Bible is a moving anthology of mixed documents being transmitted (edited and redacted) and translated through time.  Only canonical critics attempt to arrest it as normative at any one point in time, which is what you are doing in taking the MT (perhaps as BHS) as normative, but that is unrealistic.  Even in the case of Jeremiah, we do not know which of his two scribes presented him most accurately, one in Egypt and one in Babylonia during the Exile.  The MT follows the Hebrew variants generated through time in Babylon, while the LXX follows the Hebrew text generated in Egypt.  Over the centuries many variant readings enter into these texts.  Still, it is precisely the LXX which is overwhelmingly preferred by the NT.

The Targums are even less reliable as accurate versions of the law. They don't even pretend to be accurate versions of the law. They were teaching tools. I will admit to not being familiar with the Samaritan ancient texts. Since they were not the official scribes, however, my guess is I will find their texts dubious. Perhaps you can point me to something available online?

Online you will want to use CAL, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, which also provides the texts of the targums.  See http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ .

Jesus frequently quoted the Targums, as you can see from the following list generated by Craig Evans:

Matt 5:12, 23:37, Luke 6:23,13:34  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 28:11
Matt 13:17, Luke 10:24  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 48:6
Matt 26:52  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 50:11
Mark 1:15, Matt 4:17  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isa 52:7
Mark 4:11-12  Jesus here follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isa 6:9-10
Mark 8:31  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Hosea 6:2
Mark 9:47-48  Jesus alludes to a tradition of “Gehenna” found in targum Isaiah 66:24
Mark 12:1-9  Jesus alludes to a tradition of “sanctuary” and “altar” found in targum Isaiah 5:1-7
Luke 6:36 (Q), Matt 5:48  Jesus used a midrashic expansion of a tradition found in targum Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 22:28
Luke 10:9  Jesus follows a tradition found in targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 34:6 – man & woman joined together by God
Luke 10:24, Matt 13:17  Jesus follows a tradition found in targum Isa 48:6
Luke 10:25-28  Jesus follows traditions found in midrash Sipra Lev §193; Damascus Document A, 3:15-20; and targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 18:5
John 1:1,3  John here following a tradition found in targum Neofiti Gen 1:1
John 12:41  Jesus quoting from a tradition found in targum Isaiah 6:1 “I saw the glory of the Lord” 

 By "original Hebrew" I was merely referring to your statement: "The Masoretic Hebrew text is over a thousand years later (the cantillation signs even later), so cannot be used to judge the original text." I was trying to make the point that you try to turn around on me, that there is no "original text." It is long gone. I believe the temple scrolls were destroyed by the 7 year war, and those were the closest there was to an "original text" of the law. I now believe the MT is the closest we have. They were probably made from copies of the temple scrolls.  And no, I don't believe it is perfect, but it is much better than the Septuagint, and I am glad to have it. If you know of something better, I would love to hear about it. I realize that after Moses the Hebrews probably adopted the Phoenician alphabet, and adapted it to their version of Aramaic. Canaanite or Judahite were just versions of the Aramaic mother tongue. While the Hebrews were in Egypt, they picked up Egyptian words and names. When they came out of Egypt, I am sure they picked up on other Phoenician words and Canaanite words. Hence, Hebrew or "Galilean Aramaic" continued to evolve. So again, not to belabor the point, I realize you are probably talking about the theoretical "original text" that we don't have, and which no longer exists. IMHO, the MT is the best version of it we have. Again, for me to toss it aside, I need more than one demonstrably flawed version of the Tanakh (ie the Septuagint). 

The concept of an "original text" is a mirage.  Even in the case of the "Original Manuscript" of the Book of Mormon, we only have a quarter of that, and it is filled with mistakes of the scribes who took dictation from Joseph -- often mishearing him, or misspelling words, etc., not to mention the fact that much of it is in the Early Modern English already extinct in Joseph's own time.   Moreover, it is a translation of a text in Egyptian, to which we do not have access, based partly on a still earlier Brass Plates -- also in Egyptian.

The notion of MT as a set text arrested in time is nonsense.  It consists of a multitude of variant readings, including deliberate alterations by pious scribes (tikkune soferim).  BHS uses it as a base text for a critical text, but it must include all the other readings from other traditions, including scholarly speculations.  Volgadon has already rightly punctured your deep belief in the MT.

 

[volgadon]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hi

Do you have a bear in this fight, or do you just enjoy attacking me for defending the MT? I get that you apparently don't like me. I am merely defending my stance that the MT is the best version of the Tanakh we have. In this case (Jeremiah) the KJV happens to agree with it. I have never said the LXX can "simply be dismissed as a bad translation" nor that it does not reflect "some of the textual families in the DSS," but hey, thanks for YOUR assumptions bud. All I have been saying all along is that I value the MT the most, as essentially the most accurate version of the OT we have. I have not claimed it to be perfect. But I do find many faults in the LXX in comparison to the MT. And for me personally, to throw out the MT based on the Septuagint alone is not gonna fly. I've asked for other corroborating evidence that the general reading of the MT is wrong, and the best anyone has come up with is the Septuagint version. Again, sorry that won't fly with me. So you can keep playing your little mind games if you want, but it won't change these facts. But feel free to show which version of the MT disagrees with me here and what relevance it had to this conversation at all for you to even bring it up. And hey, you don't have to believe the MT if you don't want. I happen to place the most weight on it. And I require more than one other corroborating source to dismiss it. I asked about the "Samaritan texts" and got no response from anyone. No one has come to defend the Targums either. That leaves the MT and the Septuagint, and I come down in favor of the MT and in this case it is corroborated by the KJV and JS made no changes to this verse in the JST. Again case closed. Judgment for the MT. Thanks for playing. 

PS. and just so you know I have Jewish blood too, so this is not an ethnic issue. You may wish to consider your assumptions....

With a defense like yours, the MT needs no detractors. This isn't personal, I just dislike poor, ill-informed arguments. For example, how is a Jacobean translation supposed to corroborate the accuracy of the very text it has translated? Entirely circular and illogical. When I asked you a question directly relevant to the accuracy of the MT, you snapped that I was interrogating you. So, when do the first traces of a masorah as such appear, and how many Masoretic schools were there? If you cannot answer these two questions, you really will need to go back to the very basics. Bob Smith, OTOH, knows what he is talking about. It is possible to dispute his claims, but you need to do some serious reading first. His LXX example (which despites protestations to the contrary you are dismissing) shows that double names were often written together. Your view of the LXX is relevant, as you are operating on the assumption that the translation was poor, deviating from the standard text. The DSS discoveries show that it was frequently based on a different textual family, and that the MT is a development of a different family which can be later than that used with the LXX. What this means is that closer attention needs to be paid to the texts, and that claiming "many faults" in the LXX is an insufficient argument based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the LXX. The Samaritan Pentateuch does have precedents in the DSS as well, but it is its own textual tradition. A proper scholar would examine it, and use the evidence responsibly. The targumim are an entirely different kettle of fish. Now, the irony is that your very first question to Bob in this thread reveals your inadequate grasp of Hebrew. Oh, and mentioning ethnicity has nothing to do with my argument, it is correcting an assumption that you made, Lucius.

 

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not speak of the LXX as the "sole source of 'original text'."  I reject the idea of any original text for the Bible generally, since the Bible is a moving anthology of mixed documents being transmitted (edited and redacted) and translated through time.  Only canonical critics attempt to arrest it as normative at any one point in time, which is what you are doing in taking the MT (perhaps as BHS) as normative, but that is unrealistic.  Even in the case of Jeremiah, we do not know which of his two scribes presented him most accurately, one in Egypt and one in Babylonia during the Exile.  The MT follows the Hebrew variants generated through time in Babylon, while the LXX follows the Hebrew text generated in Egypt.  Over the centuries many variant readings enter into these texts.  Still, it is precisely the LXX which is overwhelmingly preferred by the NT.

You are the one who referred to the "original text" as such. I was merely responding to you and your assumption that I believe in an "original text." I am not someone who has spent his entire life studying scriptural texts, and I don't want to be. However, I am not so naive as to believe there is still an "original text" of the scriptures. I do believe there are versions more accurate or closer to the original words breathed from God, and yes, I do believe there was an original version. I also realize to some extent this is a moot point, as some of the "original text" is lost with each translation into a new language. I also believe scribes struggled to keep the meaning of the original, but to make their new editions understandable to their charges. For instance I do not believe the original Torah contained the name of the city built by the Hebrews as "Raamses." I believe that was a redacted name. In other words it was not the original name of the city which changed over time. I believe in Moses' time the city was named Avaris. The pharaoh of his day probably changed the name to who knows what when he chased out the "Hyksos." Then Ramses II apparently changed the name again when he added to the city, and it became Rameses. In order that later Hebrews knew the proper place I believe later scribes redacted the name to the "Raamses" which appears in our English Bibles. Does that make it wrong or inaccurate? No, I don't think so. It is still the same place. But, I do believe many scholars have erred in their chronology of the exodus because of this, placing it at the time of Ramses II, and then concluding that the archaeology does not support the Bible. So translations and even redacted copies do matter, and different interpretations can lead scholars in very different directions and incorrect conclusions. 

I believe your assumption that there were two textual or scribal traditions of the Hebrew text is incorrect. The temple priests were charged with maintaining the law. They were the official levitical priests. I still believe, perhaps to your dismay, that the MT is the best version we have of the texts they kept. The fact that the Greek NT often follows the LXX does not lend much if any credence to the LXX textual tradition as you put it. The Peshitta manuscripts date to an approximately equivalent time period and do not follow the LXX. It seems to me that Roman-Greek pride is responsible for such naive beliefs as Jesus quoted from the LXX or taught in Greek. I believe if we still had the original Matthew we would find that it did not quote the LXX at all. Personally, I believe the best two textual traditions of the OT are the MT and the Peshitta, which you did not mention at all, unless by "Samaritan texts" you were referring to the Peshitta. The Samaritan texts you are apparently alluding to is simply the Torah, and does not even have a Jeremiah, Zechariah nor Isaiah which contain the relevant passages concerning the Branch so IMHO there is essentially no reason to bring this up in this discussion other than to try to pass off your two-words-as-one-name stuff. While I believe the Hebrews did indeed do this - for instance in the case of El Shaddai - if I try to claim that Shaddai is indeed such a "conjunction" my guess is it will be you who will baulk. The problem for you is that neither the MT texts nor the Peshitta texts support your view. The Septuagint was simply a translation by some Alexandrian library Jew in all probability. Not only is the text rife with inaccurate translations, but it is supported by an inaccurate and surely fraudulent Letter of Aristeas. The Septuagint is where the uninspired tradition of the Apocrypha books comes from. It is rife with inaccurate translations, and is supported by an demonstrably errant Letter of Aristeas to help prop it up. It comes out of the late school of Judaism which was going apostate, and had gotten tied up in minutiae, and the Septuagint supports many of their errant beliefs. 

Quote

The notion of MT as a set text arrested in time is nonsense.  It consists of a multitude of variant readings, including deliberate alterations by pious scribes (tikkune soferim).  BHS uses it as a base text for a critical text, but it must include all the other readings from other traditions, including scholarly speculations.  Volgadon has already rightly punctured your deep belief in the MT.

Again, you are trying to paint me as some believer in the "original text" when it is you who brought up the subject as if it were something concrete. I used "original Hebrew" in that vein. Both you and I realize that there is no longer an "original Hebrew" or "original text" in that sense. However, I believe that the prophets did record the word of God in their own languages as it was spoken to them. In the case of most of the prophets that was Hebrew. In the case of Daniel that may have been Aramaic, as that was the language he learned as a youth in Babylon, and the language the people came to speak as servants while they were in Babylon. God gave the charge of keeping the law to the levites which they performed to the time of Christ. And the law was quite specific that they weren't to change God's words, and I believe they took that charge quite seriously - much better than the Gentiles did. Plainly and simply, the MT is the best version of that law we have. If it weren't for it and the Peshitta, we would have lost even the name of God, YHWH, since the Septuagint does not accurately keep it. So if you are concerned about "alterations by pious scribes" you don't need to look very far when reading the Septuagint my friend. While I do uphold the MT text, I also do believe that scribes did make changes to it. I have found 2 instances I am quite suspicious of - one in Deut, and a whole omitted verse in the Psalms. In such instances I do find the LXX to have value as a corroborating source together with the Peshitta, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts. I do not know why you and Volgadon wish to puncture the MT. I believe it has great value as the primary text of the Tanakh, and will say again that I am glad to have it. While I realize that subsequent Masoretes have made slightly different versions, it does not change the fact that the oldest MTs are the closest we have to the temple texts, and are closely corroborated by the other more official version we have - the Peshitta. I say that because scholars recognize the Peshitta OT was probably translated at a very early date inferring it was perhaps even translated by some of the seventy under the direction of the apostles. Whoever did it, it is apparent to me that it was created under the direction of the early church before apostasy set in, and therefore, under the auspices of God's true disciples - a claim the Septuagint cannot make. The Peshitta normally corresponds to the MT rather than the Septuagint. If you wish to laud the virtues of the Septuagint, I cannot stop you, but you and Volgadon have not given me any reason to give the Septuagint more weight than the MT. Perhaps you realize that my general rule of thumb is to accept the MT. Where there is more than one corroborating source against it, such as the Septuagint and another text, I will consider that the MT has a fault which can be reliably addressed, otherwise, again it is my personal belief that it is the best version of the Tanakh we have. However, in my view you and Volgadon are not only arguing against the MT but against the Peshitta and the KJV as amended by the JST using a demonstrably flawed text - the Septuagint. You need more than that for me to buy your argument that the MT version of Jeremiah should be disregarded in favor of the Septuagint which does not even preserve the name YWHW - hardly the source to go to in order to argue that "YWHW is my Righteousness" is the correct translation. In fact I scoff at it - but nice try.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You are the one who referred to the "original text" as such. I was merely responding to you and your assumption that I believe in an "original text." I am not someone who has spent his entire life studying scriptural texts, and I don't want to be. However, I am not so naive as to believe there is still an "original text" of the scriptures. I do believe there are versions more accurate or closer to the original words breathed from God, and yes, I do believe there was an original version. I also realize to some extent this is a moot point, as some of the "original text" is lost with each translation into a new language. I also believe scribes struggled to keep the meaning of the original, but to make their new editions understandable to their charges. For instance I do not believe the original Torah contained the name of the city built by the Hebrews as "Raamses." I believe that was a redacted name. In other words it was not the original name of the city which changed over time. I believe in Moses' time the city was named Avaris. The pharaoh of his day probably changed the name to who knows what when he chased out the "Hyksos." Then Ramses II apparently changed the name again when he added to the city, and it became Rameses. In order that later Hebrews knew the proper place I believe later scribes redacted the name to the "Raamses" which appears in our English Bibles.

You may want to read my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu . and my “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986); online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/54423164/Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 .

Does that make it wrong or inaccurate? No, I don't think so. It is still the same place. But, I do believe many scholars have erred in their chronology of the exodus because of this, placing it at the time of Ramses II, and then concluding that the archaeology does not support the Bible. So translations and even redacted copies do matter, and different interpretations can lead scholars in very different directions and incorrect conclusions. 

I believe your assumption that there were two textual or scribal traditions of the Hebrew text is incorrect.

I was speaking about the two very different texts of Jeremiah, created by his scribes (Baruch and Seraiah), one in Babylon, the other in Egypt (where Jeremiah himself died in exile).  The Hebrew Vorlage in Egypt (which no longer exists) is the basis for LXX Jeremiah.

The temple priests were charged with maintaining the law. They were the official levitical priests. I still believe, perhaps to your dismay, that the MT is the best version we have of the texts they kept. The fact that the Greek NT often follows the LXX does not lend much if any credence to the LXX textual tradition as you put it. The Peshitta manuscripts date to an approximately equivalent time period and do not follow the LXX. It seems to me that Roman-Greek pride is responsible for such naive beliefs as Jesus quoted from the LXX or taught in Greek. I believe if we still had the original Matthew we would find that it did not quote the LXX at all. Personally, I believe the best two textual traditions of the OT are the MT and the Peshitta, which you did not mention at all, unless by "Samaritan texts" you were referring to the Peshitta. The Samaritan texts you are apparently alluding to is simply the Torah, and does not even have a Jeremiah, Zechariah nor Isaiah which contain the relevant passages concerning the Branch so IMHO there is essentially no reason to bring this up in this discussion other than to try to pass off your two-words-as-one-name stuff. While I believe the Hebrews did indeed do this - for instance in the case of El Shaddai - if I try to claim that Shaddai is indeed such a "conjunction" my guess is it will be you who will baulk. The problem for you is that neither the MT texts nor the Peshitta texts support your view. The Septuagint was simply a translation by some Alexandrian library Jew in all probability. Not only is the text rife with inaccurate translations, but it is supported by an inaccurate and surely fraudulent Letter of Aristeas. The Septuagint is where the uninspired tradition of the Apocrypha books comes from. It is rife with inaccurate translations, and is supported by an demonstrably errant Letter of Aristeas to help prop it up. It comes out of the late school of Judaism which was going apostate, and had gotten tied up in minutiae, and the Septuagint supports many of their errant beliefs. 

Again, you are trying to paint me as some believer in the "original text" when it is you who brought up the subject as if it were something concrete. I used "original Hebrew" in that vein. Both you and I realize that there is no longer an "original Hebrew" or "original text" in that sense. However, I believe that the prophets did record the word of God in their own languages as it was spoken to them. In the case of most of the prophets that was Hebrew. In the case of Daniel that may have been Aramaic, as that was the language he learned as a youth in Babylon, and the language the people came to speak as servants while they were in Babylon. God gave the charge of keeping the law to the levites which they performed to the time of Christ. And the law was quite specific that they weren't to change God's words, and I believe they took that charge quite seriously - much better than the Gentiles did. Plainly and simply, the MT is the best version of that law we have. If it weren't for it and the Peshitta, we would have lost even the name of God, YHWH, since the Septuagint does not accurately keep it. So if you are concerned about "alterations by pious scribes" you don't need to look very far when reading the Septuagint my friend. While I do uphold the MT text, I also do believe that scribes did make changes to it. I have found 2 instances I am quite suspicious of - one in Deut, and a whole omitted verse in the Psalms. In such instances I do find the LXX to have value as a corroborating source together with the Peshitta, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts. I do not know why you and Volgadon wish to puncture the MT. I believe it has great value as the primary text of the Tanakh, and will say again that I am glad to have it. While I realize that subsequent Masoretes have made slightly different versions, it does not change the fact that the oldest MTs are the closest we have to the temple texts, and are closely corroborated by the other more official version we have - the Peshitta. I say that because scholars recognize the Peshitta OT was probably translated at a very early date inferring it was perhaps even translated by some of the seventy under the direction of the apostles. Whoever did it, it is apparent to me that it was created under the direction of the early church before apostasy set in, and therefore, under the auspices of God's true disciples - a claim the Septuagint cannot make. The Peshitta normally corresponds to the MT rather than the Septuagint. If you wish to laud the virtues of the Septuagint, I cannot stop you, but you and Volgadon have not given me any reason to give the Septuagint more weight than the MT. Perhaps you realize that my general rule of thumb is to accept the MT. Where there is more than one corroborating source against it, such as the Septuagint and another text, I will consider that the MT has a fault which can be reliably addressed, otherwise, again it is my personal belief that it is the best version of the Tanakh we have. However, in my view you and Volgadon are not only arguing against the MT but against the Peshitta and the KJV as amended by the JST using a demonstrably flawed text - the Septuagint. You need more than that for me to buy your argument that the MT version of Jeremiah should be disregarded in favor of the Septuagint which does not even preserve the name YWHW - hardly the source to go to in order to argue that "YWHW is my Righteousness" is the correct translation. In fact I scoff at it - but nice try.

You have a lot to say, and you go on at great length, but nearly everything you say here is nonsense.  I would suggest first that you learn to read biblical Hebrew, either at a local college, university, or synagogue, or in an online live course with qualified teacher, mic, and webcam -- I highly recommend eteacherbiblical.com/courses where the MT will be your focus, and you can take in their free webinars before you sign up.  After you have taken courses A through E, you will be ready for Septuagint Greek, and later for Koine/NT Greek.  Or you can take their biblical Aramaic course.  All are taught by experts.  At that point, you will begin to understand what volgadon and I have been trying to impress upon you.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have a lot to say, and you go on at great length, but nearly everything you say here is nonsense.  I would suggest first that you learn to read biblical Hebrew, either at a local college, university, or synagogue, or in an online live course with qualified teacher, mic, and webcam -- I highly recommend eteacherbiblical.com/courses where the MT will be your focus, and you can take in their free webinars before you sign up.  After you have taken courses A through E, you will be ready for Septuagint Greek, and later for Koine/NT Greek.  Or you can take their biblical Aramaic course.  All are taught by experts.  At that point, you will begin to understand what volgadon and I have been trying to impress upon you.

 It is not nonsense. I will be happy to further support everything I said. I don't need to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek to know that the Septuagint does not preserve nor transliterate YHWH, but uses the Greek "Kurios" which is equivalent to the Hebrew Adon for YHWH. Nor that it alone is not the proper tool on which to challenge the MT of Jeremiah. You are polite and very knowledgeable, and I am sure you know more Hebrew and Greek than I. However, such does not necessarily translate into knowing the original intent of the Lord. I know you feel you are right, but sometimes preconceived notions can get the better of even the brightest. I am familiar with the world of scholarly textual analysis and have studied such in school. I know what you are trying to say. However, it does not flow from the various other scriptures concerning the Branch which read similarly. It is a popular conclusion of Jews who also believe no one but the Father is YHWH. They are wrong for the same reasons that they are wrong that Yahoshua is not YHWH - there are two examples of what you are trying to tell me right there - Yahoshua and YHWH are both sentences unto themselves. If it makes you feel better I will pray about that particular verse.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 It is not nonsense. I will be happy to further support everything I said. I don't need to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek to know that the Septuagint does not preserve nor transliterate YHWH, but uses the Greek "Kurios" which is equivalent to the Hebrew Adon for YHWH. Nor that it alone is not the proper tool on which to challenge the MT of Jeremiah. You are polite and very knowledgeable, and I am sure you know more Hebrew and Greek than I. However, such does not necessarily translate into knowing the original intent of the Lord. I know you feel you are right, but sometimes preconceived notions can get the better of even the brightest. I am familiar with the world of scholarly textual analysis and have studied such in school. I know what you are trying to say. However, it does not flow from the various other scriptures concerning the Branch which read similarly. It is a popular conclusion of Jews who also believe no one but the Father is YHWH. They are wrong for the same reasons that they are wrong that Yahoshua is not YHWH - there are two examples of what you are trying to tell me right there - Yahoshua and YHWH are both sentences unto themselves. If it makes you feel better I will pray about that particular verse.

Once again you attribute positions to me which I have not taken, and you misunderstand the basics of the languages and texts you refer to.  The only reasonable solution for you is to carefully study the languages and the sources.  At that point you will have some hope of understanding what we have been saying.  The scholarly community does not share your views for the very good reason that they do not correspond to reality.

[RevTestament]

The "scholarly community" does not believe the Branch will be called YHWH our Righteousness - got it. Only translators of the MT I guess believe that.

The scholarly community has believed many things over the years which have been dead wrong. So you are welcome to join their ranks.

P.S. Your "scholarly" opinion that mesoamerica is the land of the Book of Mormon is dead wrong too. 

But I like you anyway....

[Cold Steel]

On 2/9/2016 at 0:40 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

So, you are saying that the Father and Son are corporally separate entities, but corporately one. Does this mean that you favor a social trinity?

Corporately. As the apostles were ONE, so are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ONE. 

It even goes further. If three can be one, why can't more? If we have a Heavenly Mother, she also can be part of that oneness. 

It wasn't until the early 20s that we knew there were other galaxies than the Milky Way. Suddenly the neighborhood got a whole lot bigger. Now we theorize the existence of other universes. If we go beyond the limits of our universe, who's to say there aren't as many universe as there are galaxies? Can we really believe that one entity has created and governs that much real estate? As the sons of God enter this great expanse (and this includes the daughters), we become part of the corporate ONE. If God told Isaiah that He was the only God in existence, and we took that literally, then what of the others we call God? If the Father is one, and the Son is a separate entity and can commune with with the Father, and if the Holy Spirit is still another, as Nephi tells us, then which one is the only God? Then Jesus uses the corporate Twelve to illustrate just how he and the Father (and presumably the Holy Spirit) are ONE. And I've seen nothing to refute that concept. To say, no, that's ONE way they're ONE, but they're also ONE entity just makes no sense to me. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/12/2016 at 11:28 AM, RevTestament said:

The "scholarly community" does not believe the Branch will be called YHWH our Righteousness - got it. Only translators of the MT I guess believe that.

The scholarly community has believed many things over the years which have been dead wrong. So you are welcome to join their ranks.

P.S. Your "scholarly" opinion that mesoamerica is the land of the Book of Mormon is dead wrong too. 

But I like you anyway....

I like you to, Rev.

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Corporately. As the apostles were ONE, so are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ONE. 

It even goes further. If three can be one, why can't more? If we have a Heavenly Mother, she also can be part of that oneness. 

It wasn't until the early 20s that we knew there were other galaxies than the Milky Way. Suddenly the neighborhood got a whole lot bigger. Now we theorize the existence of other universes. If we go beyond the limits of our universe, who's to say there aren't as many universe as there are galaxies? Can we really believe that one entity has created and governs that much real estate? As the sons of God enter this great expanse (and this includes the daughters), we become part of the corporate ONE. If God told Isaiah that He was the only God in existence, and we took that literally, then what of the others we call God? If the Father is one, and the Son is a separate entity and can commune with with the Father, and if the Holy Spirit is still another, as Nephi tells us, then which one is the only God? Then Jesus uses the corporate Twelve to illustrate just how he and the Father (and presumably the Holy Spirit) are ONE. And I've seen nothing to refute that concept. To say, no, that's ONE way they're ONE, but they're also ONE entity just makes no sense to me. 

 

Once one understands this teaching of Yahoshuah, all the scriptures open up to the true "nature" of God - that He is literally inviting us into His house of Elohim through His Son, Yahoshua Christ. It is this central truth which the doctrines of thr trinity cover up. Most trinitarians don't get that when.I say I have no problems with three being one.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like you to, Rev.

• Ahh, shuckss...

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Once one understands this teaching of Yahoshuah, all the scriptures open up to the true "nature" of God - that He is literally inviting us into His house of Elohim through His Son, Yahoshua Christ. It is this central truth which the doctrines of thr trinity cover up. Most trinitarians don't get that when.I say I have no problems with three being one.

Hebrewisms aside, this is exactly what Joseph taught concerning the Gods.

[Cold Steel]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Once one understands this teaching of Yahoshuah, all the scriptures open up to the true "nature" of God - that He is literally inviting us into His house of Elohim through His Son, Yahoshua Christ. It is this central truth which the doctrines of thr trinity cover up. Most trinitarians don't get that when.I say I have no problems with three being one.

Funny you should say that because if you leave the churches, the theological schools and departments of universities and go into the homes of the "flock," you find their understanding of the Trinity more along the lines you're talking about. After attending church in western Kentucky one Sunday decades ago, we had our traditional Sunday family Dinner following church services. It was before I became LDS and during the meal we offer talked about what the preacher had taught during his sermon. This particular conversation rested on the Trinity and what Preacher had said, to wit, that he was a Son to his father, a Husband to his wife and a Father to his children -- all at the same time. And the pastor of our nondenominational Bible church back home had regaled us with the water analogy. Water, he said was one substance that could manifest itself as liquid, solid and mist. 

It may have all made sense to the professors, but those around the table weren't buying it. Why would Jesus pray to himself if he also were the Father? Why would Jesus deny his own request to remove the bitter cup? And who heard and answered prayers and carried on the role as Mediator while Jesus was in the flesh? (Latter-day saints know that while Jesus was constrained to the flesh, he was subject to the same veil of forgetfulness that we are and that he gained his knowledge line upon line. He could discern the thoughts and desires of others, but not in India or the other side of the planet. 

 

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Hebrewisms aside, this is exactly what Joseph taught concerning the Gods.

And it makes sense. One wonders why the learned of Smith's day couldn't come up with it on their own. We dropped money 💰 in the plate and what did we get?Water, ice and stream! Puh-leese! 

Thank God for the Restoration of the Gospel!