This sounds interesting

[Johann]

The point was - how is that even relevant to the difference between the original corrupted LXX and the replacement by Theodotian?

And even the replacement by Theodotian is just a transliteration.
J.

 

[Diserner]

The point was - how is that even relevant to the difference between the original corrupted LXX and the replacement by Theodotian?

I think it's an attempt to show "levels" of corruption.

Even the Hebrew has corruption.

 

[Obadiah]

I'm an old earth theistic evolutionist.

Many consider that unsaved.

Well if God used evolution as his method for creation I'm sure that's His prerogative. I don't see how that would have any effect on your salvation. I don't think it's that important how the Romans got the wood for the cross. What's important is who died on it. Also evolution is compatible with the Christian idea of creatio continua, the notion that God is continuously creating.

 

[Johann]

I think it's an attempt to show "levels" of corruption.

Even the Hebrew has corruption.

Careful here-you will have rabbi Tovia Singer slam-dunk you. The Masoretic text is not bad.
It is how we interpret the text-as you may have noticed.
J.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

And even the replacement by Theodotian is just a transliteration.
J.

Are you suggesting that Theodotian's version of Daniel is the Hebrew/Aramaic text "transliterated" into Greek? That it is not actual Greek but instead Hebrew/Aramaic sounded out in Greek letters?

 

[Diserner]

Well if God used evolution as his method for creation I'm sure that's His prerogative. I don't see how that would have any effect on your salvation. I don't think it's that important how the Romans got the wood for the cross. What's important is who died on it. Also evolution is compatible with the Christian idea of creatio continua, the notion that God is continuously creating.

I appreciate your open-mindedness.

In fact, Obadiah, there are actually arguments you can make from evolution.

Without desiring to become off-topic, let me just throw out a little advertisement here:


Evolution displays the moral aspects of sin: selfish striving to survive and replicate at the expense of others.

Evolution displays incredible design: Imagine winding up a mechanism that later unfolds into the most intricate biological machines.

Evolution represents the curse and punishment: it displays constant suffering, life at the cost of death, imperfection and struggle to survive.

Evolution displays redemptive grace: in the midst of the curse we find much beauty and meaning.


Now consider every Christian doctrine that can still be retained:


1. Original ancestors who transgressed God's Law bringing a curse.

2. An invisible realm with angels and demons.

3. God becoming a man to suffer the punishment of sins.

4. Revelation from and union with the Holy Spirit.

5. A final moral judgment of all of our lives before the throne of God.

 

[Diserner]

Careful here-you will have rabbi Tovia Singer slam-dunk you. The Masoretic text is not bad.
It is how we interpret the text-as you may have noticed.
J.

I ain't afraid of the big bad Tovia.

Any honest person admits the Hebrew text is not perfect.

Tovia actually makes a lot of factual mistakes, as intellectual as he tries to come across.

 

[Johann]

Are you suggesting that Theodotian's version of Daniel is the Hebrew/Aramaic text "transliterated" into Greek? That it is not actual Greek but instead Hebrew/Aramaic sounded out in Greek letters?

Brother-you have Google, why not fact checking?

Theodotion’s version appeared in the sixth column of Origen’s Hexapla, a 3rd-century version of the Old Testament presenting six Greek and Hebrew texts in parallel columns. It is not so much an independent translation as a revision of the Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation, dating in part from the 3rd century BC—supplying its omissions.

Peculiar Hebrew words are not translated but transliterated into Greek letters, either in order to avoid conjectural readings or to give an authentic colour to the version.

The popularity of Theodotion’s translation in the early church can be deduced from its fragments that fill gaps in the Septuagint text of Jeremiah and from its version of Daniel that replaces the Septuagint translation.

It was quoted in the 2nd century in the Shepherd of Hermas and by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The replacement of Daniel was so thorough that only two manuscripts (one of about the 3rd century and one of the 11th century) of the Greek Old Testament contain the Septuagint version. Theodotion’s version of Daniel may go back to an older translation. The extant manuscripts of the Theodotion text were published in 1875.

Johann.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The LXX came from am early Hebrew source. The translation of the LXX is just as reliable as the NT manuscripts written by Hebrews in Greek.

This has so many assumptions and issues that it would take an entire discussion to unpack it all. And it would derail this thread.

I referenced the LXX generically and was not appealing to the superiority of the LXX genealogies. I am simply witnessing to the discrepancy. We have to admit there is alternative information.

The problem is that one can't make generic statements when referring to accuracy. There are manuscript variants which range from very accurate to very inaccurate. That really is at the heart of all of this.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well....at the point of the creation of light and the definition of Day and Night, there was no earth, sun, or solar system in existence at that point. Just pointing out an "inconvenient fact".

Really? How do you establish this as fact?

 

[praise_yeshua]

This has so many assumptions and issues that it would take an entire discussion to unpack it all. And it would derail this thread.

Then start a thread. I've studied the Biblical canon for many many years.

The problem is that one can't make generic statements when referring to accuracy. There are manuscript variants which range from very accurate to very inaccurate. That really is at the heart of all of this.

So you get to decide what the most reliable manuscript is for everyone? That is the problem here. Men have made choices in the past that we do not have to make ourselves. Just like Calvin or Augustine.... they do not get to make choices for me. I can make them myself by studying and knowing the Truth. I can assure, I well "versed" in the Biblical canon. I've probably spent more time in my life debate this one subject than any other.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Brother-you have Google, why not fact checking?

Theodotion’s version appeared in the sixth column of Origen’s Hexapla, a 3rd-century version of the Old Testament presenting six Greek and Hebrew texts in parallel columns. It is not so much an independent translation as a revision of the Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation, dating in part from the 3rd century BC—supplying its omissions.

Peculiar Hebrew words are not translated but transliterated into Greek letters, either in order to avoid conjectural readings or to give an authentic colour to the version.

The popularity of Theodotion’s translation in the early church can be deduced from its fragments that fill gaps in the Septuagint text of Jeremiah and from its version of Daniel that replaces the Septuagint translation.

It was quoted in the 2nd century in the Shepherd of Hermas and by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The replacement of Daniel was so thorough that only two manuscripts (one of about the 3rd century and one of the 11th century) of the Greek Old Testament contain the Septuagint version. Theodotion’s version of Daniel may go back to an older translation. The extant manuscripts of the Theodotion text were published in 1875.

Johann.

The point is that you needed to fact check your claim. As Theodotian's version is NOT a transliteration. It contains some words which were transliterated. But not the entire thing - which is what your claim stated in general. Big difference. And I'm glad you have been corrected.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Brother-you have Google, why not fact checking?

Theodotion’s version appeared in the sixth column of Origen’s Hexapla, a 3rd-century version of the Old Testament presenting six Greek and Hebrew texts in parallel columns. It is not so much an independent translation as a revision of the Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation, dating in part from the 3rd century BC—supplying its omissions.

Peculiar Hebrew words are not translated but transliterated into Greek letters, either in order to avoid conjectural readings or to give an authentic colour to the version.

The popularity of Theodotion’s translation in the early church can be deduced from its fragments that fill gaps in the Septuagint text of Jeremiah and from its version of Daniel that replaces the Septuagint translation.

It was quoted in the 2nd century in the Shepherd of Hermas and by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The replacement of Daniel was so thorough that only two manuscripts (one of about the 3rd century and one of the 11th century) of the Greek Old Testament contain the Septuagint version. Theodotion’s version of Daniel may go back to an older translation. The extant manuscripts of the Theodotion text were published in 1875.

Johann.

The amount of information is so vast on this subject that "Googling" can't really fill in the gaps for someone that is just now seeking to know the subject. It can certain get someone started.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Then start a thread. I've studied the Biblical canon for many many years.



So you get to decide what the most reliable manuscript is for everyone? That is the problem here. Men have made choices in the past that we do not have to make ourselves. Just like Calvin or Augustine.... they do not get to make choices for me. I can make them myself by studying and knowing the Truth. I can assure, I well "versed" in the Biblical canon. I've probably spent more time in my life debate this one subject than any other.

I did not make any statement of the kind. You are reading way too much into things.

 

[Diserner]

Peculiar Hebrew words are not translated but transliterated into Greek letters, either in order to avoid conjectural readings or to give an authentic colour to the version.

Kind of like those "Jewish" translations of the Bible do?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The point is that you needed to fact check your claim. As Theodotian's version is NOT a transliteration. It contains some words which were transliterated. But not the entire thing - which is what your claim stated in general. Big difference. And I'm glad you have been corrected.

Accents are late to both Greek and Hebrew languages. Greek has the advantage.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I did not make any statement of the kind. You are reading way too much into things.

Just defining the boundaries with questions. Not implying, seeking.

 

[Johann]

The amount of information is so vast on this subject that "Googling" can't really fill in the gaps for someone that is just now seeking to know the subject. I can certain get someone started.

Bit too late for "someone" who just started and well advanced in years.
J.

 

[Diserner]

Accents are late to both Greek and Hebrew languages. Greek has the advantage.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are on par, age-wise with the Septuagint.

Just a point of reference.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Accents are late to both Greek and Hebrew languages. Greek has the advantage.

What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?