The LXX that Jerome and Augustine had access to at that time.
The Predestination of the Greek OT, the Greek NT, and the Greek Language for the revealing of the Holy Trinity.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
The Hexaplaric LXX-The Old Latin (Vetus Latina)-The LXX from Church Traditions?
Isaiah 7:14 – "Virgin" vs. "Young Woman"
LXX (Septuagint):
ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν…
("Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son...")
Hebrew (Masoretic Text):
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן...
("Behold, the young woman is pregnant and will bear a son...")
Jerome (Vulgate):
ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium...
(Jerome retained "virgo" [virgin], but he was aware of the Hebrew ʿalmah meaning "young woman.")
Augustine:
Strongly defended the LXX’s παρθένος (virgin), arguing that it was the text used by the apostles and was divinely guided, even if it differed from the Hebrew.
2. Psalm 22:16 – "They Pierced My Hands and Feet"
LXX:
ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας μου
("They pierced my hands and my feet.")
Hebrew (Masoretic Text):
כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי
("Like a lion are my hands and my feet.")
Jerome (Vulgate):
foderunt manus meas et pedes meos ("They dug [pierced] my hands and my feet.")
(Jerome chose the LXX reading over the Hebrew because he recognized that the Hebrew text seemed corrupted here.)
Augustine:
Fully supported the LXX’s ὤρυξαν (pierced), seeing it as a messianic prophecy that aligns with the crucifixion of Christ.
3. Genesis 5:25-27 – Methuselah’s Age at the Flood
Do you have hard copies of this? Beginning to sound very confusing wouldn't you say @synergy?
But I have to admit, the Masoretic text should be discarded, right?
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Think you have won me over to your side-the LXX side.
Busy going through Ps. 22.
J.
I'm very happy to see how everyone sided with the Apostles in their usage of παρθένος. That begs the question, why didn't Jerome follow Augustine's advice to stick with the LXX?
Johann
Well-known member
Short version.
Jerome did not follow Augustine’s advice to use the Septuagint (LXX) as the basis for the Old Testament in his Latin Vulgate translation because of his strong commitment to the Hebrew text, which he believed to be more authoritative than the Greek translation. This decision was influenced by several key factors:
Textual Accuracy and Hebrew Primacy – Jerome, having learned Hebrew from Jewish scholars in Bethlehem, came to believe that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) was the most authentic version of the Old Testament scriptures. He saw the LXX as a secondary translation that contained errors and expansions not found in the Hebrew text. In his Prologus Galeatus (Helmeted Preface), he explicitly argued that the Hebrew text should be the standard for Christian translations.
Divergences Between the LXX and Hebrew Text – Jerome was deeply concerned about the significant differences between the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX. He recognized that the LXX contained numerous interpolations and expansions that were absent from the Hebrew Bible. This led him to conclude that the LXX, while useful, was not as reliable as the Hebrew text.
J.
Since the Hebrew text was an open canon at that time, it made a big difference who exactly were the custodians of the Hebrew text that Jerome received. Did Jerome receive the Hebrew text from unbelieving Jews or from believing Christian Jews?
How do you think Jerome would respond to the fact that the Mosoretes ripped out whole books from the Hebrew canon, many of which Jerome himself translated into Latin?
Runningman
Well-known member
You sound antisemitic. I just repeat what Jesus taught.
What is antisemitic? The fact that I do not understand Hebrew or that God predestined Greek-speaking Jews (Bereans, for example) to spearhead Christianity in Roman lands?
Runningman
Well-known member
"Non-believing Jews" sounds like Jesus is not a believer as well as Moses, Abraham, and all of the prophets. They were all true believers in the Old Covenant and the New. In some cases, they were looking forward to the New Covenant from a prophetic sense. Just not a good look for them to be made out to be non-believers.
I was obviously talking about Pharisees, their followers, and everyone who didn't believe Jesus. Would you classify Pharisees as believers?
Runningman
Well-known member
Oh okay, they were the religious establishment at the time, but they didn't represent the majority view. The biggest problem was that they were corrupt. The Jews, generally speaking, are not corrupt as Jesus proved.
101G
Well-known member
Not saying that you're right or wrong. but consider this. The Greek as well as the Hebrew both states that "God" is a Single PERSON. and the Lord Jesus, (in the Greek language, NT) who is God himself, confirms what was said in the Hebrew language that God is "ONE" person in the H259 "ECHAD" of himself. and this is confirmed in the Greek language, G243 ALLOS, as the EQUAL SHARE of himself, "God", in flesh and blood as a man. this is confirmed in the definition of "OFFSPRING". Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." here the Greek term G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n. describe exactly what the Hebrew H259 ECHAD said. "ONE"
Offspring:
G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096
this "diversity" or another/G243 ALLOS of God himself, .... "THE ARM of GOD" in flesh, is exactly what the Hebrew H259 ECHAD is stating.
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
note definition #2 (as an ordinal) first. this is the plurality of God, (and NOT a trinity of God) that he God came in the Ordinal designation of FIRST/Father and LAST/Son. this is backed up in John 1:1. listen carefully. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." question, "how can the Word be ..... "WITH" .... God, and ...... "WAS" .... God? my answer by bible is clear. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." notice the I the Lord, one person, who is the first.... correct. and the scripture states the ONE PERSON the LORD, all caps is .... "WITH" ..... the Last, just as in John 1:1 the Word was ... "WITH" ... God... now, ........ is this two separate and distinct persons in Isaiah as well as John 1:1 who was .... "WITH" .... someone eles? let the bible speak. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO, it's the same one person who is FIRST and LAST. how do we know this? the term "ALSO", which means, in addition; too. so the LORD who is the First is ... ALSO .... the Last. is this not scripture? Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet," Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." or this, Revelation 2:8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;" or this one, Revelation 22:12 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
the same one person, just as the Word in John 1:1 is the same one person GOD.
so, the trinity was not of God...... which means it was a man conjecture given unto him by Satan himself.
101G.
Johann
Well-known member
A bunch of errors here--
The Hebrew Word "Echad" (אֶחָד) Does Not Mean Absolute Singularity
You argue that echad (H259) in Deuteronomy 6:4 refers to a solitary person. However, this interpretation is inconsistent with its usage elsewhere:
Genesis 2:24 – "And they shall become one (echad) flesh." This denotes a composite unity—a husband and wife becoming a unified whole, not a singular entity.
Exodus 26:6 – "And it shall be one (echad) tabernacle." Again, this refers to multiple parts forming a unity.
Deuteronomy 6:4 – "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one (echad)." Given the previous examples, this verse is best understood as affirming God's unity, not a numerical singularity.
If the intent were to stress absolute singularity, the Hebrew word yachid (יָחִיד)—which means "only, solitary" (Genesis 22:2, Judges 11:34)—would have been used instead.
Source: Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 3
2. "Genos" (γένος) in Revelation 22:16 Does Not Prove Singularity
You cite genos (G1085) to argue that Jesus, as the offspring (genos) of David, proves God's singularity. However, genos does not mean "one person." It means "kind, race, offspring, or nation", depending on context (BDAG, genos).
In Revelation 22:16, Jesus being called the offspring of David refers to His human lineage, not to an ontological statement about God's nature. His divine nature is evident elsewhere, such as in John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6-7.
Source: William Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 280
3. John 1:1 Demonstrates a Distinction in the Godhead
Your interpretation of John 1:1 misunderstands the Greek construction. The phrase "the Word was with God" (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) explicitly indicates a distinction of persons while maintaining unity in essence.
The preposition πρὸς (pros) suggests face-to-face interaction, which would be nonsensical if referring to a single person. This aligns with the Greek grammatical rules discussed by Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 40).
The phrase "the Word was God" (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος) does not equate the Word with the Father but asserts that the Word possesses the same divine nature as God (Colwell’s Rule).
Source: A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 767
4. Isaiah 41:4 Does Not Support Modalism
You argue that Isaiah 41:4 ("I the LORD, the first, and with the last") means that one person is both the first and "with" the last. However, this interpretation ignores the clear biblical teaching that the Son and the Father are distinct persons while sharing divine essence.
Revelation 22:13 – Jesus applies "the First and the Last" to Himself, identifying with Yahweh.
Psalm 110:1 – "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand...'" This proves a distinction of persons, since David refers to two divine figures.
If God were a single person, these passages would be incoherent.
Source: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, pp. 24-28
5. The Greek Word "Allos" (ἄλλος) Proves Distinction, Not Modalism
You claim that allos (G243) means "an equal share of Himself," but this is incorrect.
Allos means "another of the same kind", as opposed to heteros (ἕτερος), which means "another of a different kind" (BDAG, allos).
John 14:16 – Jesus says, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another (allos) Helper." This explicitly distinguishes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If modalism were true, Jesus would have used autos (himself) instead of allos.
Source: Bruce Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 80
6. Biblical Evidence for Plurality in God
The claim that God is "one person" ignores multiple passages demonstrating plurality within the Godhead:
Genesis 1:26 – "Let us make man in our image." Plural pronouns indicate multiple persons in the Godhead.
Genesis 19:24 – "Yahweh rained fire... from Yahweh out of heaven." This suggests two persons called Yahweh.
Daniel 7:13-14 – "One like a Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days..." The Son is distinct from the Ancient of Days but receives worship (which belongs to God alone).
Matthew 3:16-17 – At Jesus' baptism, the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends. This scene explicitly contradicts modalism.
Source: Robert M. Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place, pp. 100-108
The Biblical Trinity
God is one in essence but three in persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
John 1:1 proves distinction between the Word and God while affirming the Word’s full deity.
Echad (אֶחָד) denotes unity, not absolute singularity.
Genos (γένος) does not mean "one person" and does not equate to echad.
John 14:16 refutes modalism by distinguishing Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Thus, the claim that God is a "single person" is unbiblical and cannot be supported by proper exegesis or linguistic analysis.
J.
101G
Well-known member
did 101G say that?
no, the term H259 ECHAD means in Ordinal desiginations. that your ERROR.
is God a man and do God have a wife? no, so you error again. now listen, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
God here in the verse is this a single plurality of two? no, but a singularity of one Person ... "EQUALLY SHARED". big difference from Genesis 2:24.... (smile).
YIKES!now before we go futher, let diuscuss God as a H259 ECHAD. your example in Genesis 2:24 fails as it comes to God who is a, Spirit. who is a SINGLE PERSON.
101G say God is a SINGLE PERSON who is "Diversified", or EQUALLY SHARED in flesh and bones. and here is why we say this.
ONE: Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments the Hebrew term "ONE" is,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
notice definition #2. Ordinal designation, THE FIRST. this FIRST is in "TIME", PLACE", "ORDER", and "RANK", Just as the term beginning in Genesis 1:1 described God plurality of "ONE" person.
Beginning:
H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
God's "ORDER" as "FIRST" in TIME, PLACE, and RANK, is in Ordinal designation. if you cannot understand this just ask.
101G.
