Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX

[praise_yeshua]

I can't believe you actually believe that. Wow. Such ignorance of the actual facts. Seriously.

Then prove me wrong. I keep providing evidence and you keep ignoring it. You don't know if what I said is true or not because you have studied it yourself.

 

[Diserner]

The Book of Revelation shows very ungrammatical and "wrong" Greek.

I don't see why John can't have poetic license to bend grammar for such a creative work. There is a rigidity to strict grammar adherence that can stifle creativity and poetic expression.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I can't believe you actually believe that. Wow. Such ignorance of the actual facts. Seriously.

And it's very telling that you neglected to include the quote which denies your limited knowledge of the Greek text.

I did make a mistake. I meant East and not West.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I don't see why John can't have poetic license to bend grammar for such a creative work. There is a rigidity to strict grammar adherence that can stifle creativity and poetic expression.

"Bend grammar". It's bad Greek. Someone who writes this way is to be considered unschooled and ignorant. There is no reason for it. The original Aramaic text of Revelation is full of word play, rhyming, beautiful literary style. All missing from the Greek text.

It also includes the tetragrammaton - the name of Yahweh. Something that the Greek translation - and all of the rest of the Greek New Testament does not. Only the Aramaic text makes use of the tetragrammaton.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't see why John can't have poetic license to bend grammar for such a creative work. There is a rigidity to strict grammar adherence that can stifle creativity and poetic expression.

That is viable explanation but it does not match the work of John the Beloved.

Either way, he is getting into the "weeds". It has not impact on the individual books of the NT.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Bend grammar". It's bad Greek. Someone who writes this way is to be considered unschooled and ignorant. There is no reason for it. The original Aramaic text of Revelation is full of word play, rhyming, beautiful literary style. All missing from the Greek text.

You used the word "ungrammatical"...... Geesh. He answered based upon your words. You're "moving the goalpost".

The Aramaic edition is late. It doesn't matter how you appeal to "beauty".

Are you going tell me what "High Form" of Hebrew you prefer?

 

[civic]

It seems odd that you stop quoting the blog at an important point:

(Brief detour: Some may want to play around with the idea that Paul was quoting from the Vorlage that the translator of Greek Isaiah was using. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. First, the translator of Old Greek Isaiah is known for his free translation technique — interpretative moves in the Greek text are nothing new. Second, we have no textual evidence for a different Hebrew text here.)​

​

So here the author pulls in two lines of thought:

1. The Greek was known for being a "free translation technique," that is not sticking closely to the Hebrew original.
2. It is important when there is no textual evidence of a Hebrew original matching the free translation of the Greek.

Now you take those points and apply them to the LXX translation in the OP, and you are left with a free translation with no Hebrew original verifying it. When they met a difficult word or syntax they had to handle it in some way. And you can see the mess they made of Isaiah 9:6:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (Isa. 9:6 LXE)​

Does this strike you as a trustworthy translation of the beautiful Messianic description we've come to know and love? Is this what you profess to be your original inspired text, denouncing the corrupt Hebrew that calls him Mighty God and Father of Everlasting?

We must be cautious with the LXX and use it knowing it is not perfect.

Are you denying the NT directly quotes from the Septuagint?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You used the word "ungrammatical"...... Geesh. He answered based upon your words. You're "moving the goalpost".

The Aramaic edition is late. It doesn't matter how you appeal to "beauty".

Are you going tell me what "High Form" of Hebrew you prefer?

What's your problem, bud?

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[praise_yeshua]

What's your problem, bud?

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Did you actually read those words in the defintion

..."not conforming to the rules or principles of grammar".....

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Did you actually read those words in the defintion

..."not conforming to the rules or principles of grammar".....

I know you didn't.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In addition, the evidence of the "bad Greek" is rock solid proof that it's a translation - from Aramaic. In every single instance of genders not matching with its noun and the verb tenses not being correct, in every single case if you back translate the words to Aramaic what results is grammatically correct, pure, and beautiful Aramaic. It's just the facts.

Reference with the actually work that has been peer reviewed?

That is a ridiculous claim.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Reference with the actually work that been peer reviewed?

That is a ridiculous claim.

Says the person that won't check any evidence that will rock his set views on all topics. I don't care if you don't accept it. Not worth my time.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I know you didn't.

I copied the definition from your link.

I'm not going to click links to your material. I don't need to review YOUR material. Definitions are good. You're the one not applying them.

It is funny how you're questioning "grammar" and you can't even abide by standard English yourself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Says the person that won't check any evidence that will rock his set views on all topics. I don't care if you don't accept it. Not worth my time.

What? Some imaginary "link" at the Vatican you claim is there?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

--

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

We should take this discussion to the private chat area where those that are truly interested in the topic can talk personal attacks deleted

 

[Diserner]

All missing from the Greek text.

I disagree with your assessments, and find the Greek of Revelation very beautiful in its own distinctly unique way.

 

[Diserner]

Are you denying the NT directly quotes from the Septuagint?

The NT quotes of the OT are a hybrid mix of MT, LXX, both and neither.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I disagree with your assessments, and find the Greek of Revelation very beautiful in its own distinctly unique way.

That's fine. But it's still not "proper" Greek. And the Aramaic text of Revelation is written in the God inspired beauty of the Old Testament. It shows that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament had the same perfect hand behind it all.

 

[Diserner]

That's fine. But it's still not "proper" Greek. And the Aramaic text of Revelation is written in the God inspired beauty of the Old Testament. It shows that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament had the same perfect hand behind it all.

If there were an Aramaic original, it's probably either lost or undiscovered.

The one we have will show signs of a later style and inaccuracies indicating translation.

Most of the arguments you use for the Aramaic would apply equally to Hebrew, since they are cousin languages.