The MT stands for Mangled Text. The Masoretes and their predecessors were notorious for being manglers of Hebrew Text as a reaction against Christians.You know that hurt.....
No one has ever compared me to Singer.
No. I asked you to define Bible because you used the phrase "Hebrew Bible". Which is a contradiction in terms. You said those words and then applied them to both the DSS and the MT. Which diverge from one another.
Referencing the MT and the DSS as if they are the same evidence is contrary to fact.
The fake REV "edition".
- Thread starter praise_yeshua
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I know you do. Isn't it the work of the Masoretes?
Why is this your primary source? There are competing manuscripts. The Masoretes are not authoritative.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I provided a reference to the DSS digital image of Genesis 1:1. Have you reviewed it or not?
I provided a digital image of Genesis 1:1 from the DSS. Don't pretend your "chart" is actual evidence.
Johann
Well-known member
My apologies.You know that hurt.....
No one has ever compared me to Singer.
Hebrew Scriptures- or Peshitta, Targumim-better?
J.
Johann
Well-known member
In the line of Fire-Michael Brown-hence my question which you are dodging. Which of the Hebrew Scriptures are you reading.
J.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
It didn't actually hurt. Just joking a little.
The Greek OT manuscripts collected into the Alexandrinus Codice.
Johann
Well-known member
Not pretending anything-you are deflecting from answering a very simple question.
J.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The DSS fragments.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Not at all. I'm reviewing the manuscript evidence. I provided a digital image. You haven't provide a single reference to a manuscript itself. Collecting, collating and editing manuscripts is a very error prone process. You're too trusting of secondary sources.
You're the one actually deflecting.
Johann
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I couldn't find בראשׁית in a DSS fragment of Genesis 1:1.
You know this. You're the one deflecting. You made the claim. I didn't. You're being sloppy. You didn't start with the manuscripts. You worked your way backwards from your primary source in the OJB. You then changed your story to the OJB not being your primary source.
There is no reason to be so dishonest with what happened. Just admit you were wrong about the DSS and the MT. Greek witnesses are better sources when comparing John 1:1 to the historical evidence itself.
I'm trying to get you to correct your methodology and get serious about evidence. I wish I could get others to actually take this "journey" with me through the evidence. Very few do. At least you've come this far.
Now change. I did.
Johann
Well-known member
Just because you couldn't find it you debunk the MT?
Circular reasoning.
Man! I am no expert on the DDS but are you going to throw out the MT just because of one "missing" word?
Why did you pick a fight with me in the first place? YOU were the one accusing me.
And all because me sharing an excerpt of the OJB? Intellectual dishonesty.
Are you male or female? Your profile is "inaccessible" which is a red flag to me. Especially on the Internet.
More than willing to take this "journey" with you-just holler.
J.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Stop being dishonest. You are the one that referenced the DSS. Not me. I dealt with your claim.
No it is not. It is dishonest reasoning on your part.
The MT is not authoritative. It is a product of unbelievers. Those who hate Jesus Christ. I don't accept the work of Jehovah Witnesses in their preferred edition. Nor do I accept the words of your father's because the manuscript exists. Evidence requires proof. The oldest witness to Genesis 1:1 are in Greek. Not Hebrew.
No. You used it as a primary source of evidence. You know you did.
I remain anonymous. It allows me to speak freely without fear of retribution. It is "red flag" to me when someone insists I identify myself.
Do you know who actually produced the first MT? Male or female? Apply your own standards in everything you choose.
How about being honest in this journey? Is that too much to ask?
If you're not going to use the evidence of the DSS then why did you even mention it? You realize NOW that you can't. That is the only reason you're deflecting.
When do you think I knew otherwise?
Johann
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
If I were you, I wouldn't use Kent Hovind as evidence. You might want to get to know him better......
Johann
Well-known member
So what?!
Bull dust man-I will read the MT and you the uninspired version of the LXX. You are starting to work on my nerves with you demanding me wasting my time with you. It is already 10.14 PM here in south Africa
The Septuagint (LXX) is not attributed to a single author but is rather the result of a collaborative effort by various Jewish scholars and translators. The translation process began in the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt, where a significant Jewish community lived and spoke Greek.
Can anything good come out of Alexandria-
Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
OJB.
Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Deal with it!
Good to know-now I don't have to answer you anything without fear or retribution.
Masoretic Text - Wikipedia
The Dead Sea Scrolls do indeed contain fragments of the Book of Genesis (also known as Bereshit in Hebrew), but Genesis 1:26 specifically is not one of the verses preserved in the surviving scrolls.
While the DSS are valuable, it's important to acknowledge that they are not infallible. Some fragments are incomplete, and the interpretation of certain texts can be complex. Additionally, the presence of non-biblical texts among the scrolls indicates that not all material reflects mainstream Judaism or Christian thought.
Well, considering you are an "unknown factor," I am under no obligation to retract anything I’ve said regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. For all I know, you could be a bot.
Additionally, you seem to dismiss the Masoretic Text without hesitation.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Show me where he is wrong re the different translations and forget who he is.
J.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
If Jesus was a proven liar would you care one thing about what He said?
You must be an advocate for "do as I say, not as I do".......
Think before you say such things.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So you actually believe the MT is inspired. No duh.... Thanks for admit it.
Sure can. Did Abraham come out of Egypt? Do you seriously realize what you're writing.
My goal is to show just how wrong you are. You have fundamental problems with reasoning and understanding. If you recognize this, you will change. You don't believe you need to change.
Already have. You're referencing works of men. I'm referencing manuscripts. What exactly is important here? You preferred sources or the manuscripts themselves?
Similar threads
