The Predestination of the Greek OT, the Greek NT, and the Greek Language for the revealing of the Holy Trinity.

[synergy]

He doesn't know the subject. The very idea that the Greek NT was altered to match the LXX sets him against historical Christianity.

He will not engage. He is full of false claims and nonsense. The Hebrew of Moses has disappeared and only survives in the Greek OT. They are promoting the silliness of the ancient enemies of Messiah in Christ Jesus. His theology betrays him.

So far that's exactly what I see from Dizerner.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jewish Monotheists Were Already Equipped for the Holy Trinity – Because many faithful Jews were fluent in Greek, they were uniquely prepared to grasp the revelation of the Holy Trinity. They understood the concept of God's Word (Logos, as in John 1:1) and God’s Spirit (Pneuma), which were already present in Jewish thought. The gospel didn’t introduce a "new" God but rather revealed the fullness of who God always was.

There were faithful Jews among the Scribes/Rabbis of the Greek OT. You can find dissent within the Ancient Rabbinical traditions of the time period. You can also find that the supposed "Tetragrammaton" came forth the time period associated with origins of the Greek OT in Alexandria.

This is why Jews avoid the NT. They know if you can connect the OT to the NT, they will be forced to deal with Jesus Christ.

 

[Johann]

Are you a follower of Brown? If you will take his side, I'll be glad to debate this with you. You avoid hard questions because you know the limitation of your arguments.

I'll take Codex Alexandrinus against anything you want to offer. It has stood the test of time and is the premier source for Historical Christianity.

Do you prefer losing the Virgin Birth to the MT and DSS? Start there.

Go for it, I'm ready for you. And I don't appreciate your tone @praise_yeshua.

Isa 7:14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

Your statement assumes that the Masoretic Text (MT) and Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, particularly in Isaiah 7:14, where the MT reads ʿalmah (עַלְמָה, “young woman”) instead of parthenos (παρθένος, “virgin”) as found in the Septuagint (LXX).

The Virgin Birth Does Not Depend Solely on Isaiah 7:14

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is explicitly affirmed in the New Testament (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:34-35), independent of the textual debate in Isaiah.

The Textus Receptus (TR) and earliest Greek manuscripts confirm παρθένος (“virgin”) in Matthew 1:23, showing how the apostolic tradition understood Isaiah 7:14.

ʿAlmah Does Not Exclude Virginity

While ʿalmah (עַלְמָה) in the MT can mean “young woman,” it does not exclude virginity.

In biblical usage, an ʿalmah is typically an unmarried woman of marriageable age, implying virginity (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19).

The LXX translators (pre-Christian Jewish scholars) understood it as “virgin” (παρθένος), suggesting that they interpreted ʿalmah as a young woman who was indeed a virgin.

The DSS (1QIsa-a, the Great Isaiah Scroll) agrees with the MT’s wording but does not contradict the Virgin Birth.

The New Testament’s Authority and the Inspired Use of the LXX

The Holy Spirit, through Matthew, authoritatively interprets Isaiah 7:14 using the LXX reading. If one believes in biblical inspiration, Matthew’s citation of παρθένος establishes divine intent.

The Apostolic and early Christian writers consistently affirmed the Virgin Birth, showing that the Church never depended solely on a specific OT manuscript reading to defend the doctrine.

The MT and DSS Are Not Necessarily Superior

The DSS confirm that the MT was not the only textual tradition—many DSS readings align with the LXX.

The MT was preserved by post-Christian Jewish scribes, meaning it reflects a standardized tradition that postdates Christ and was influenced by later Jewish theological priorities.

Preferring the MT or DSS does not mean rejecting the Virgin Birth. The doctrine is based on divine revelation in the NT, the LXX’s pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, and the broader theological witness of Scripture. Your argument assumes a false dichotomy—one can recognize textual variations while still affirming the Virgin Birth based on the New Testament’s inspired interpretation and fulfillment in Christ.

Go ahead.

J.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Go for it, I'm ready for you. And I don't appreciate your tone @praise_yeshua.

You're not my Judge. Lets take this outside of this thread. I'll start a thread with your comments in the Bible subforum.

 

[Dizerner]

You're a Hebrew Onlyist. You refuse to name a single superior reading from the singular ancient Greek stream.

I already explained to you these things are grossly untrue friend.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I already explained to you these things are grossly untrue friend.

Not true. Everyone can read it for themselves. You're void of any details.

 

[Dizerner]

Not true. Everyone can read it for themselves. You're void of any details.

YOU'RE "void of any details." Hypocrite.

 

[Dizerner]

So far that's exactly what I see from Dizerner.

Absurd. This is not rationality.

 

[Johann]

You're not my Judge. Lets take this outside of this thread. I'll start a thread with your comments in the Bible subforum.

Do as you will-I have no regard for pride, arrogance, or condescending speech, and you are not my judge.

J.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do as you will-I have no regard for pride, arrogance, or condescending speech, and you are not my judge.

J.

P

Thread 'The Virgin Birth and the Greek OT'

Yesterday at 1:56 PM

Isa 7:14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

Quote your translation above. When you do, we will see the problem with your assertions.

Your statement assumes that the Masoretic Text (MT) and Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, particularly in Isaiah 7:14, where the MT reads ʿalmah (עַלְמָה, “young woman”) instead of parthenos (παρθένος, “virgin”) as found in the Septuagint (LXX).

...

• praise_yeshua
• Replies: 24
• Forum: The Bible

 

[praise_yeshua]

YOU'RE "void of any details." Hypocrite.

Be specific. What detail do you desire? I asked for your willingness to share a superior Greek OT reading and you didn't respond. Above you claim the NT was altered to conform to the NT. You're all over the place.

 

[synergy]

Absurd. This is not rationality.

So that is your proof that "There is more of an argument to be made that the LXX was altered in response to Christianity than the MT", now that the LXX quotes are frozen in time within the NT?