Monday, April 9, 2012

Paul Williams' "Scholarship" Pierced Through


The prophetically announced, apostolically confirmed, historically verified reality of Christ’s crucifixion, something virtually uncontested by the vast majority of scholars, has long been a point of embarrassment for Muslims, as has Christ’s triumph over death and the grave, particularly since the man they wish was a prophet, Muhammad, who admittedly has been under the power of death for 1,400 years, is widely believed to have denied that the crucifixion (and by implication the resurrection) even took place:

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ): S. 4:157, Hilali-Khan

Since in the nature of the case truth must cohere with itself and correspond to the facts, this of necessity meant that a systematic altering of many other things taught by the prophets and apostles was in order for Muhammad. Not only did Muhammad’s denial of the crucifixion logically dictate that he would have to teach a very different view of salvation than that shadowed forth in the ceremonial law of Moses, of which Christ is authoritatively declared to be the reality, substance, and fulfillment according to the apostolic writings (q.v. the Book of Hebrews); it also necessitated teaching a very different view of God, who in this scheme becomes the arch-deceiver of history.

And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) THE BEST (of) the cheaters/deceivers. S. 3:54, Ahmed Ali


And when those who disbelieved deceive/scheme at you to affix/affirm you, or kill you, or bring you out, and they scheme/deceive, and God deceives/schemes and God (is) BEST (of) the deceivers/schemers. S. 8:30, Ahmed Ali

In this coup, God becomes the paradigmatic deceiver, and Satan’s deception becomes merely imitative, being modeled on Allah’s own pattern of deception, a habit Allah is said to have modeled forth and to have had some practice in long before the first century.

He [i.e. Satan] said: Now, because Thou [i.e. Allah] hast sent me astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. S. 7:16, Pickthall


[Iblis (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Because you misled me (aghwaytanee), I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I shall mislead (walaoghwiyannahum) them all. S. 15:39, Hilali-Khan

This is very different from what Jesus taught:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from HIS OWN NATURE, for he is a liar and THE FATHER OF LIES. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:42-47, NASB

Unsurprisingly Muslims have put forth a lot of effort to cover Islam’s shame when it comes to these things. One such Muslim is Paul Williams of the Muslim Debate Initiative. Today Paul has argued that the prophecy of Psalm 22:16, which has traditionally been understood to foreshadow the crucifixion, is not well-founded, resting as it (allegedly) does on later manuscripts that are not supported by the reading found in the original Hebrew text. According to Paul, the post-Christian Jewish study Bible gives the more accurate, and no doubt “unbiased,” reading. In contrast to the King James version, which says,

For dogs have compassed me:


the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:


they PIERCED my hands and my feet

The Jewish Study Bible offers the following translation of the supposedly earlier and more reliable reading:

Dogs surround me;

a pack of evil ones closes in on me,

like lions [they maul] my hands and feet

After also quoting the New Revised Standard Version, Williams concludes:

…since the King James version was made over 400 years ago numerous manuscripts of the Hebrew bible have been discovered taking us ever CLOSER to the ORIGINAL text. In a number of significant places our translations have been revised in light of these new discoveries, Psalm 22 being a good example. This has meant that a number of traditional proof texts employed by Christians as prophecies of Jesus are no longer credible… (emphasis mine)

Ironically enough, Williams’ usual targets are Christian fundamentalists; yet it is just the kind of superficial acquaintance with and presentation of the facts on full display in Williams' argumentation that is supposed to characterize fundamentalists.

Michael Rydelnik, a Jewish convert to Christianity who is currently professor of Jewish Studies at what Williams would call a “fundamentalist” school, i.e. Moody Bible Institute, is better acquainted with the facts and makes Williams look like an obscurantist of the highest order:

The Masoretic Text reads ka’ari, (“as a lion”) and the Septuagint reads oruxan, from the verb orusso, “to dig/excavate” or “to perforate/pierce,”41 apparently a translation of the Hebrew k’ru (“they pierced”).42 Thus, the verse in the Masoretic Text reads, “For dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has closed in on me; as a lion . . . my hands and my feet.” However, the LXX, Syriac, and the Vulgate read, “For dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has closed in on me; they pierced my hands and my feet.”


Plainly, the Masoretic Text rendering avoids the Christological implications of predicting the crucifixion, thereby taking the less messianic rendering and making it more acceptable to Judaism.43 The primary arguments for taking the Masoretic Text as the correct reading is that preference should always be given to the Masoretic Text and to the harder reading. The absence of the verb, making the phrase elliptical, yields not only the harder reading but a virtually UNINTELLIGIBLE one. On the other hand, the Septuagintal reading has THE OLDER SUPPORT and MAKES GRAMMATICAL SENSE within the literary context.44


In the final analysis, it seems that the Septuagintal reading should be preferred for several reasons. First, although the Masoretic Text has the harder reading, there is a difference between a harder reading and an impossible one. One would have to assume incoherence on the part of the author, which is far more than the principle of taking the harder reading requires. As Peter Craigie has noted, the Masoretic Text reading “presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct.”45 Second, defining the harder reading depends on the audience reading it. For a Masorete, “they pierced my hands and my feet,” a seeming prediction of the Messiah’s crucifixion, would certainly have been the harder reading. Third, the LXX reading fits the literary context, makes grammatical sense, and is supported by the other versions (and even some Masoretic traditions). Perhaps most important, in 1997, the translation of a textual discovery from Nahal Hever in the Judean Wilderness brought strong support to the Septuagintal reading.


The discovery of a fragment of the book of Psalms, dated between AD 50-68,46 contains Ps 22:17[Eng. 16] and reads, k’ru (“they pierced”).47 . . . Thus THE OLDEST EXTANT Hebrew manuscript of Ps 22:17 reinforces the Septuagintal, Syriac, and Vulgate readings, supporting the translation “They pierced my hands and my feet.” (Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing, 2020), p. 44-46) (Italics original; bold and capital emphasis mine)


42 It is uncertain whether the verb rendered by the LXX was כָּאֲרִ or כרך, both of which occur in a few Masoretic mss. R. L. Harris took it from כרך, giving the meaning as “bore, dig, hew (meaning dubious).” He explains that it “occurs only in Ps 22:16 [H 17],” and “may be an hapax ka’ar. The meaning ‘dig, wound, pierce’ would derive from the context and LXX.


43 The MT reading is also supported by the editors of the NET Bible. Although they recognize that the reading is “grammatically awkward” and characterized by “broken syntax,” their apparent commitment to the MT above all motivates them to retain the Masoretic reading and to argue that “it is better not to interpret this particular verse as referring to Jesus’ crucifixion in a specific or direct way.” The NET Bible (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 1997), 924n20.


44 For a thorough analysis of the text-critical problem and a compelling argument for the LXX reading, see C. R. Gren, “Piercing the Ambiguities of Psalm 22:16 and the Messiah’s Mission,” JETS 48 (2005): 284-99.


45 P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 196.


46 P. Flint, “Biblical Scrolls from Nahal Hever and ‘Wadi Seiyal’: Introduction,” in Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert, ed. J. Charlesworth, N. Cohen, H. Cotton, and E. Eshel, DJD 38 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 143.


47 M. Abegg Jr., P. Flint, E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 519; J. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 125. The latter states, “Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reading in question is not preserved at Qumran, but in the Psalms scroll from Nahal Hever (5/6HevPs), which is textually very close to the Masoretic Text. In line 12 of column 10 we read: ‘They have pierced my hands and feet’! For the crucial word … is grammatically difficult; but it is clearly a verb, not a noun and means they have bored or they have dug or they have pierced.”

The facts, then, pierce right through Williams’ claims to scholarship and expose the fundamentalist beneath. However, don’t be too hard on Paul, the possibility remains that it was his “god” who made him think he was a scholar. This wouldn’t be the first time the one who admits to being the arch-deceiver of history has led one of his "creatures" astray.

-------

Some other articles dealing with this in more detail can be found here:

Addressing Muslim Polemicist Abdullah Kunde's Biblical Distortions Pt. 1

Good Question -- did the Christians Simply invent the "pierced my hands and feet" passage in Psalm 22?

Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?

12. Objections to 2nd and 22nd Psalm

Psalm 22, Questions and Comments

Piercing the Ambiguities of Psalm 22:16 and the Messiah's Mission

79 comments:

ben malik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

Excleent to bad its going to be waisted on Paul Williams.

Herakleios said...

Hi,

nice information you are giving here.
I must admit i never before looked at the hebrew text for Ps22.
It clearly says כָּאֲרִי (basicly meaning like the lion).
The funny thing about it might be - even this version doesnt change the meaning of the text! It is a more difficult reading, but the meaning in both "versions" is pointing to the hands and feet being wounded in some way. As a christian reader, you would still think of the cruzifictino of Jesus. As a non-christian reader, it has a more general meaning, not expressing the crucifiction in a direct way. The wounding of the hands and feet remains anyway - making it still a prophetic text for the crucifiction of Jesus (at least for christians), no matter what word is now used! Surely, if you dont believe in the crucifiction, even the "piercing" of hand and feet doenst have to have any meaning and could be a prophecy/text for something else.

For my part, after reading it again right now, i am actually impressed, how strong the relation of Ps22 as a whole is to Jesus Christ and in that way even "as the lion my hands and feet" gets a prophetic hint to Jesus.

Hm - i hope i could express what i wanted to say in a proper way, my english isnt that good ... hope you get what i want to say.

ben malik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

Hey bro, I posted a comment on Williams' blog calling him out for his lies and deception on this issue. I linked to my reply to Kunde who also used this same lame argument against White: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/kunde/distortions1.html. I told him that he better post my comment otherwise I would expose his cowardice for all to read. You beat me to it. :-)

Witness said...

Here's something I don't understand. The Qu'ran states that Muhammad's message was to reaffirm what was written in the Torah and the Gospels. Great. But then Muhammad received all these revelations that contradicted what was in the Gospels, such as Jesus' death by crucifixion. So why would Muhammad receive a revelation saying he had to confirm the message in the Gospels? Makes no sense.

minoria said...

Hello guys,

I was already familiar with the material,having read Dr Michael Brown,a Jewish and Christian scholar on the Hebrew scriptures and his study of the history of Psalm 22.

In fact I even wrote an article on it:

"Did Psalm 22 originally say “They pierced my Hands and Feet”?

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/03/did-psalm-22-originally-say-they-pierced-my-hands-and-feet/

I have found Paul williams helpful in that he poses questions that gave origin to articles that answered them.

There is also this new article:

"The “Convert or Die” Campaign in 1895-96 in Afghanistan against the Polytheists of Kafiristan"

http://www.antisharia.com/2012/04/10/the-convert-or-die-campaign-in-1895-96-in-afghanistan-against-the-polytheists-of-kafiristan/

Derek Adams said...

Interesting.

The problem is if the oldest reading is accurate this is then clear evidence that post-Jesus, Jews decided to corrupt the Bible. How many times have they altered the masoretic text? and why isn't this clear evidence the masoretic should not be given precedent at all?

Lindert said...

@Derek Adams

I do not see evidence of deliberate changing of the text by the Jews. In fact, some Masoretic manuscripts preserve the original reading.
More importantly, the corruption of כארו to כארי can be explained adequately by a mere misspelling without the need to invoke deceitfulness. The yod and waw are not all that different, and furthermore, כארו is a non-standard spelling of כרו, so that might add to the confusion.

Notwithstanding that the Jews have taken things out of context, they have always showed great reverence and dedication to their sacred writings and I believe would not dare change them.

kaimana said...

Here's a interesting read from sam shamouns rebuttal to kunde's argument"....Hence, the evidence shows that if anyone tampered with the text it certainly wasn’t the Christians!


(In this passage we must also note John 19:37 and Zechariah 12:10. There was a controversy concerning Psalm 22:16. The Hebrew Masoretic text reads “Like a lion are my hands and my feet”. Jews accused Christians of altering the text. In Christian versions the verse reads, “They have pierced my hands and feet” but Jewish versions of this verse instead had “Like a lion, my hands and feet”. This reading really doesn’t make sense. Christians and Jews debated this passage for over a thousand years. Who changed it, did the Christians or the Jews, and what did the original actually say? Since the original manuscripts of the Bible have disappeared it was difficult to know for certain. Finally, in 1948 a version of the Bible was discovered that predated both Christianity and Judaism. The religion we know as Judaism was founded after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The true culprits who altered the text were exposed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here the original reading of “They have pierced my hands and my feet” has been preserved… So it was the Christians who preserved the original reading of this passage of scripture.) (Stephen Andrew Missick, The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic: Discovering the Semitic Roots of Christianity [Xulon Press, 2006], pp. 77-78; bold emphasis ours)"


that say's it all in a nutshell.

Radical Moderate said...

@Minoria

Just read you article. In it you wrote...

"
3.In 12 Masoretic texts we have it as kaaru or pierced and in the majority it is as “lion.”

I'm wondering do you have the name of those 12 Masoretic texts and can you site the source where you got that information from.

Also you wrote...

"4.Also in a famous rabbinic Midrash commentary of 800 AD on Psalms 22 it is written that it refers to the Messiah."

Do you have the source for this Midrash.

This is all very interesting

Thanks

gabriella oak said...

There is something about Paul Williams which just doesn't ring true for me. I think he is the type of person who joined the Islamic club because of the attention he garnered there,and also because I suspect he enjoys the reaction of his fellow Brits when he drops the " Oh, but I'm a Muslim " bomb into conversations. Bet it makes him feel all enlightened and progressive and superior inside.

He didn't like it much when Nabeel (in the most gracious manner possible) made mincemeat of his position during their debate in London, did he ? His oh-so-polite-English demeanor cracked a little that day, LOL.

leviMichael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leviMichael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Excellent post bro.

But what Williams, and jewish anti-missionaries are missing here, as I have been pointing it out for years, NO MATTER if the correct reading is "they pierced my hands and my feet", or "like a lion my hands and my feet" the passage communicates the exact same thing: Whatever the subject is going through, something terribly agonizing is happening to his hands and feet. So the text still points to the crucifixion of the Messiah. So they're back to scratch: the text communicates the same thing no matter if its כארו or כארי.

minoria said...

Hi RM,

The source for both affirmations about Psalm 22 are from Dr.Michael Brown.Here I cite from his blog,but it is also in his books:

http://realmessiah.com/Messianic_Objections

There he wrote:

"Not only so, but a famous Rabbinic midrash composed about 1200 years ago said that David spoke of the Messiah’s sufferings in Psalm 22.

We can therefore say with confidence that the application of this psalm to the death and resurrection of the Messiah is in keeping with the clear meaning of the text.”

(See Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 117-122.)""

That commentary written 1200 years ago would correspond to 800 AD.

In the same website Brown writes:

"Answer: “It is interesting to note that verse 16 [17] is not quoted in the New Testament even though other verses from Psalm 22 are cited in the Gospels. This means that verse 16 [17] was not the primary verse on which the New Testament authors focused. As to the allegation that the King James translators intentionally changed the meaning of the Hebrew text, their translation (‘they pierced my hands and feet’ verses ‘like a lion [they are at] my hands and feet’) actually reflects an ancient Jewish interpretation

along with some important variations in the medieval Masoretic manuscripts. In other words, it’s as much of a Jewish issue as it is a Christian one! In any case, there really is no problem. With either rendering, the imagery is one of extreme bodily violence done to the sufferer’s hands and feet, corresponding to the realities of crucifixion.” (See Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 122-127.)"

It is from one of his books,most probably the Answering Jewish Objections,that I got the "12 masoretic texts have it as "pierced"".

Now for the EXACT Masoretic texts and the SPECIFIC name of the Midrash book you would have to ask Dr.Brown,to contact him you can go here:

http://realmessiah.com/contact

Derek Adams said...

Lindert while I don't agree with your overall sentiment about Jews not corrupting their scriptures due to theological motives (I think their is other evidence), I do appreciate you pointing out the difference here is extremely minor.

Tychicus said...

This is excellently done!
1. Psalm 22:16 is never specifically quoted by the NT writers. So, this is not a case of "misquoted" OT scriptures.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the LXX represents Hebrew mss of the OT preceding the standardized text of the Masoretic Text.
3. Jews are committed to the MT for theological reasons despite the DDS mss.
Conclusion:
Our case is proved because the LXX (Greek) and the DDS mss (Hebrew) were both translated/transcribed made by Jews before Christianity became significant movement in the Roman Empire. The DDS text/LXX translation is therefore at least as primary as the MT reading if not moreso because the MT reading is nonsensical.

curly said...

Hello Witness,
You said "The Qu'ran states that Muhammad's message was to reaffirm what was written in the Torah and the Gospels"
Confirm the Torah and Gospel? please show me sura in Quran? I know that Quran state Jesus confirm the Torah, but do not know about both.. .Thank you so much

NITEMARES791 said...

Derek Adams said
The problem is if the oldest reading is accurate this is then clear evidence that post-Jesus, Jews decided to corrupt the Bible. How many times have they altered the masoretic text? and why isn't this clear evidence the masoretic should not be given precedent at all?

Nakdimon said...
But what Williams, and jewish anti-missionaries are missing here, as I have been pointing it out for years, NO MATTER if the correct reading is "they pierced my hands and my feet", or "like a lion my hands and my feet" the passage communicates the exact same thing: Whatever the subject is going through, something terribly agonizing is happening to his hands and feet. So the text still points to the crucifixion of the Messiah. So they're back to scratch: the text communicates the same thing no matter if its כארו or כארי.

Derek I wont talk if I was you go to any islamic room on pal talk and they will prove to you that your book has been corrupted. As far as if it is pierced or mauled makes no difference this is not a prophecy David is talking about himself.

Actually nakdimon you don't point out anything you are nothing. In fact we are glad you claim that this is a prophecy about your messiah because this verse proves your messiah is false. If you read the next verses and the rest of the psalms you will see that the one represented as being pierced did not die and your messiah died so hence your messiah is false. We have been pointing this out to you for thousands of years.

Psalms Chapter 22:14 They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and a roaring lion,

Oh look what we have here this sounds just like me hey I'm your new messiah. Oh and don't worry if I did not fulfill any of the other prophecies the next time around I will.

The absence of the verb, making the phrase elliptical, yields not only the harder reading but a virtually UNINTELLIGIBLE one.

Psalm 2 (New International Version)12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction
Talking about unintelligible there was no son of god here he was made up a thousand years later by christians. Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now.

Any one know what a harder reading is. Any one who knows psalms will see that this is the poetic style that it is written in.

All those translations quoted here were all done by christians so of course it will say pierced

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id18.html
Psalms 22:13-14 “Many bulls surround me, mighty ones of Bashan encircle me. They open their mouths at me, like tearing, roaring lions.” (JPS)

Was Jesus surrounded by the strong cattle from Bashan? Did they attack Jesus? Interestingly we see another reference to lions as well, enforcing the metaphor throughout the Psalm.

Psalms 22:15 “My life ebbs away: all my bones are disjointed.” (JPS)

Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones.

Psalms 22:26 “Because of You I offer praise in the great congregation.” (JPS)

Jesus never did this. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus as rejecting Temple life.

Psalms 22:31 “Offspring shall serve Him; the Lord’s fame shall be proclaimed to the generation to come.”

Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring.

THANK YOU
http://unsavoryislam.blogspot.com/
http://www.memri.org/subject/en/840.htm.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

PETER

NITEMARES791 said...

If you need it to fit here is what the verse says

17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, are my hands and my feet. Meaning he will over come them and not die still not about your god.

THANK YOU
http://unsavoryislam.blogspot.com/
http://www.memri.org/subject/en/840.htm.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

PETER

Royal Son said...

NIGHTMARES791 said:
Derek I wont talk if I was you go to any islamic room on pal talk and they will prove to you that your book has been corrupted. As far as if it is pierced or mauled makes no difference this is not a prophecy David is talking about himself.


Oh my, the Muslims will prove to us that our book is corrupted? Please explain to me why then Mr. Nightmare, they can never show us any original readings which undermine the central doctrines of the Christian faith?

Why is it that even Bart Ehrman himself admits that none of the variants undermine the central doctrines of the Christian faith?

Why is it that you say that the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted when the Qur'an itself teaches that nothing and noone can change the word of Allah? In fact this is said to be Allah's supreme triumph, yet according to you Allah's supreme triumph is a miserable failure.

Nightmares791 said
Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones.


My response: His bones weren't broken, they were DISLOCATED on the cross.

Btw, did you say that the CHRISTIANS wrote the Septuagint??? Are you not aware that the Septuagint predates Christianity and its readings of Psalm 22. I'm glad you made this accusation though because you're testifying to the truly Christian agreement of these writings which were written by JEWS before Christianity!

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
I really hate it when someone posts a long rant full of rambling nonsense.

1. "prove to you your book is corrupted" What book? Which book? The Scriptures consists of 66 books, not to mention the letters, etc. in the text itself. Take your best shot if you got ammunition.
2. "Actually nakdimon you don't point out anything you are nothing." Huh? What are you trying to say?
3. "the one represented as being pierced did not die" Uh, where does it say that he died when they pierced him? The psalm is speaking about the suffering of the Messiah. The psalm is speaking about the rejection of the messiah by his people. "he was despised and rejected of men a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief and we hid our faces from him... we esteemed him not... we considered him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted..." Isaiah 53
(to be continued)

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
1. "They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and a roaring lion," Duh? This is poetry portraying the ones scorning him and rejecting him. Don't get poetry in the Psalms? Can't fix stupid.
2. Psalm 2 "Talking about unintelligible there was no son of god here he was made up a thousand years later by christians. Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now." yeah, ok, so where is your evidence for this claim? All mss we have are pre-Christ and/or Christianity that demonstrate this reading. The issue is the translation, not the text.
http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:does-psalm-212-really-say-qkiss-the-sonq&catid=46:because-you-asked&Itemid=87
(to be continued)

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
1. "Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now." Duh, in Christianity he Resurrected? This is also an indication of Deity and Worship. Can we get some meds for this guy...
2. "All those translations quoted here were all done by christians so of course it will say pierced". Once again, DUH!, it is not the "translation", but the actual text in the original document that is being debated. The translation is secondary to the argument. The DDS supports the LXX as "pierced" in Hebrew.
3. "Any one who knows psalms will see that this is the poetic style that it is written in." Is my answer to most of your rambling nonsense. Yes, poetry, get it! Images, metaphors, etc. Got it! Can't fix stupid.
4. "Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones." Does it say "broken"? Does it say that his bones were broken? No. So can you just get a life? Can't fix stupid.
(to be continued)

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES971
1. "Jesus never did this. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus as rejecting Temple life." yes he did, he did go to the temple on numerous occasions in the NT Gospels and so did the Apostles. In Acts Christians also went to the temple to pray, but not to sacrifice. The ministry of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices had been fulfilled in Christ. Wow, talk about ignorant. Can't fix stupid.
2. "Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring." yes, his "offspring" where spiritually generated. he had no biological offspring. As the NT says many times and quotes the OT in support of the idea that the "children of God" are counted of the seed of the promise, not of the flesh. Can't fix stupid.
Try again.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
1. "Meaning he will over come them and not die still not about your god."
Duh, he came to conquer death and over come it by his resurrection. Death is a curse upon us because of Sin. In Adam all die.
2. Christians do not believe that God died, but the humanity of Christ died. he was fully human and fully God. That is why he could "taste death" for every man. As he said "When I have arisen I will go before you into Galilee". Get real!
Courage and Godspeed

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said "Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring."
and "Meaning he will over come them and not die still not about your god."
1. Christianity does not teach nor ever did that Jesus had biological children. DUH! Can't fix stupid.
2. the Psalm says nothing about dying. Neither does the NT, or Christianity teach that Psalm 22 is fulfillment of Christ's/ the Messiah's Death.
3. Isaiah 53 also gives the example of speaking about the suffering Messiah. But in Isaiah 53, the Messiah suffers, dies, has no biological offspring, is cast out from his people, and still is said to justify many, and see his offspring prosper. The concept of his resurrection and atonement is clear and profoundly stated.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

Isaiah's Suffering Servant. 52.13-53.12
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

NITEMARES791 said...

I will respond to all the comments addressed to me so be patient it may take a few days

THANK YOU
http://unsavoryislam.blogspot.com/
http://www.memri.org/subject/en/840.htm.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

PETER

Derek Adams said...

Just so you guys know, this is not my colleague Nitemere on my blog. This is PETE nightmare the Jew.

Pete - BTW the Muslims who prove the NT is corrupted on paltalk, are the same ones that appeal to New Testament Scholarship like Metzger, Erhman etc.

If we appealed to the Hebrew Scripture Scholars, they say the same thing.

In fact it is the CONSENSUS in Biblical scholarship. The Old Testament has been REDACTED several times. The Old Testament originally was not monolithic or monotheistic.

What Tanakh Scholar Actually Say

So you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Plus if we asked Bart Erhman about the Tanakh he would also take the view it is corrupted just like the New Testament.

So nice job appealing to the Muslims since it backfires.

Your book is also corrupted.

NITEMARES791 said...

My new remarks are without “”
Royal Son said...
“NIGHTMARES791 said:
Derek I wont talk if I was you go to any islamic room on pal talk and they will prove to you that your book has been corrupted. As far as if it is pierced or mauled makes no difference this is not a prophecy David is talking about himself.”

“Oh my, the Muslims will prove to us that our book is corrupted? Please explain to me why then Mr. Nightmare, they can never show us any original readings which undermine the central doctrines of the Christian faith?”

So you admit your book is corrupted but the central doctrine remains the same.

“Why is it that even Bart Ehrman himself admits that none of the variants undermine the central doctrines of the Christian faith?”

Who is bart ehrman and who cares about what he says.

“Why is it that you say that the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted when the Qur'an itself teaches that nothing and noone can change the word of Allah? In fact this is said to be Allah's supreme triumph, yet according to you Allah's supreme triumph is a miserable failure.”

Did I say the Torah was corrupted can you read English. Again I can fix stupid.

“Nightmares791 said
Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones.”

“My response: His bones weren't broken, they were DISLOCATED on the cross.”

“Btw, did you say that the CHRISTIANS wrote the Septuagint??? Are you not aware that the Septuagint predates Christianity and its readings of Psalm 22. I'm glad you made this accusation though because you're testifying to the truly Christian agreement of these writings which were written by JEWS before Christianity!”

Who informed you that they were written by Jews.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

It can also be that this Christianity was made up before and they found some one to fulfill it. It can also be that you are not telling the truth and the Septuagint does not predate Christianity

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
“I reMy new posts are without “”
ally hate it when someone posts a long rant full of rambling nonsense.”

I hate it when they answer that which has been disproven a thousand times.

1. "prove to you your book is corrupted" “What book? Which book? The Scriptures consists of 66 books, not to mention the letters, etc. in the text itself. Take your best shot if you got ammunition.”

How about all 66 of them.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

2. "Actually nakdimon you don't point out anything you are nothing." Huh? What are you trying to say?”

3. "the one represented as being pierced did not die" “Uh, where does it say that he died when they pierced him? The psalm is speaking about the suffering of the Messiah. The psalm is speaking about the rejection of the messiah by his people. “

Duh where does it say messiah in this chapter and why are you quoting Isaiah 53 when we are talking about Psalm 2 show me any where were it says in the chapter the suffering of the Messiah and about the rejection of the messiah by his people. You just make things up to prove your religion.”

"he was despised and rejected of men a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief and we hid our faces from him... we esteemed him not... we considered him stricken, smitten “”of God and afflicted..." Isaiah 53”

Can you read English it says “was” past tense didn’t your god come later. Yes I know you are going to make up now that past tense are really prophecies etc. Remember this and remember good our books have to make sense to the people reading it at the time. No where does it make sense past tense are a prophecy.

(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
so where is your evidence for this claim? All mss we have are pre-Christ and/or Christianity that demonstrate this reading. The issue is the translation, not the text.
http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:does-psalm-212-really-say-qkiss-the-sonq&catid=46:because-you-asked&Itemid=87”
Read this you will see. I can fix stupid.
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa22.pdf

(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
1. "Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now." Duh, in Christianity he Resurrected? This is also an indication of Deity and Worship. Can we get some meds for this guy...

Oh great duh so where is he are we not supposed to kiss him?. Obviously you have not read the OT there are mentioned there that people were resurrected are they your Deitys too. Maybe you need meds.
Here it is to remind you.
2 Kings Chapter 4:32 And Elisha came into the house, and behold the lad was dead, laid out on his bed.
35 And he returned and walked in the house once here and once there, and he went up and prostrated himself upon him: and the lad sneezed up to seven times, and the lad opened his eyes.
2 Kings Chapter 13:21 And it came to pass that they were burying a man, and behold, they saw the band, and they threw the man into Elisha's grave, and he went and touched Elisha's bones, and he came to life and stood up on his feet.

2. "All those translations quoted here were all done by christians so of course it will say pierced". Once again, DUH!, it is not the "translation", but the actual text in the original document that is being debated. The translation is secondary to the argument. The DDS supports the LXX as "pierced" in Hebrew.

Jews DID NOT translate the entire Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint. In fact, they did only the Torah part - the five books of Moses. The rest was translated by non Jews, which probably explains some of the sheer ERRORS that totally CHANGE the entire meaning of the original language
The Septuagint was then later revised further by the Church
it's not a Jewish text in any way today and no Jews read it or use it. It's an established CHRISTIAN text.

"Any one who knows psalms will see that this is the poetic style that it is written in." Is my answer to most of your rambling nonsense. Yes, poetry, get it! Images, metaphors, etc. Got it! Can't fix stupid. “

4. "Were Jesus’ bones disjointed? This would actually contradict another common proof-text used by Christians, which claims a fulfilled prophecy on the belief that Jesus never had any broken bones." Does it say "broken"? Does it say that his bones were broken? No. So can you just get a life? Can't fix stupid.“

http://bible.cc/john/19-33.htm
John 19:33 When the soldiers came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they didn't break his legs
http://bible.cc/john/19-36.htm
John 19:36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN

Can you read English it says that that the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was dead so duh wonder boy why would they disjoin his legs?

(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES971
1. "Jesus never did this. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus as rejecting Temple life." yes he did, he did go to the temple on numerous occasions in the NT Gospels and so did the Apostles. In Acts Christians also went to the temple to pray, but not to sacrifice. The ministry of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices had been fulfilled in Christ. Wow, talk about ignorant. Can't fix stupid.”

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id18.html
I posted a link and this is by an ex christian didn’t the original article claim that if you’re an ex of something you’re an expert. So there is our expert on your books.

2. "Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring." yes, his "offspring" where spiritually generated. he had no biological offspring. As the NT says many times and quotes the OT in support of the idea that the "children of God" are counted of the seed of the promise, not of the flesh. Can't fix stupid.
Try again.”

What are you talking about “seed of promise and not of the flesh” show me these offspring spiritually generated. When the OT speaks about children of G-D it always refers to physical children such as the children of Israel they were there alive not spiritually seeds. Even in this Psalm it speaks to David and says you are my son, David was alive flesh and bones not a spirit. I can fix stupid.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
1. "Meaning he will over come them and not die still not about your god."

“Duh, he came to conquer death and over come it by his resurrection. Death is a curse upon us because of Sin. In Adam all die.”

Again read David did not die from this. Your god did die you can claim he was resurrected all that nonsense but the fact remains he died and in this chapter the one did not die so it cant be talking about your god. Second if he was resurrected where is he.

2. Christians do not believe that God died, but the humanity of Christ died. he was fully human and fully God. That is why he could "taste death" for every man. As he said "When I have arisen I will go before you into Galilee". Get real!
Courage and Godspeed

What are you talking about where did you make this up from and you tell me to get real. First if he was fully human how do you know he was god. Second any human can claim that they are fully human but god too if you don’t believe me go to any mental hospital. Third if this were the case don’t you think you need very very strong proofs of this phenomena. You think a few miracles which even the Egyptians did and billam did in the OT are called proof positive that that is your god. Funny you should be telling me to get real. I can fix stupid.

Well duh did he go before anyone into Galilee?

Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matthew 24:32, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)?

Did all these things take place before the generation passed. So duh we can teach stupid.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
“You said "Jesus, according to Christian tradition, had no offspring."
and "Meaning he will over come them and not die still not about your god."
1. Christianity does not teach nor ever did that Jesus had biological children. DUH! Can't fix stupid.”

Well we agree on that he had nothing.

“2. the Psalm says nothing about dying. Neither does the NT, or Christianity teach that Psalm 22 is fulfillment of Christ's/ the Messiah's Death.”

I agree on this too.

“3. Isaiah 53 also gives the example of speaking about the suffering Messiah. But in Isaiah 53, the Messiah suffers, dies, has no biological offspring, is cast out from his people, and still is said to justify many, and see his offspring prosper. The concept of his resurrection and atonement is clear and profoundly stated.
Courage and Godspeed.”

We will see about that.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said...
Isaiah's Suffering Servant. 52.13-53.12
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

Was your god a servant or was he your god.
Anyways It is to long to write here so I will post where the answer is.

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53CP.pdf
http://www.jewishisaiah53.com/

I have a question for you Tychicus. Correct me if I am wrong but you claim your god came down to make atonement for sin. So my question is why are there gospels and why didn’t your god write them couldn’t he have died be resurrected a hundred later and have time to write all the books. Another question if he came to make atonement why does he have to come again. Please excuse me one more question don’t you claim that he came when the three angles came by Abraham and don’t you claim when Jacob wrestled that was your god. So it seems he came twice than a third time than he died came again that would be four times. So now it should be fifth coming don’t you think?

NITEMARES791 said...

Derek Adams said...
“Just so you guys know, this is not my colleague Nitemere on my blog. This is PETE nightmare the Jew.”

This is Derek the christian who follows a jew who he made him into his god against the Rabbis, who will than later claim that the Jews mislead him.

“Pete - BTW the Muslims who prove the NT is corrupted on paltalk, are the same ones that appeal to New Testament Scholarship like Metzger, Erhman etc.”

I don’t know who these are Metzger and Erhman.

“If we appealed to the Hebrew Scripture Scholars, they say the same thing.”

No they do not.

In fact it is the CONSENSUS in Biblical scholarship. The Old Testament has been REDACTED several times. The Old Testament originally was not monolithic or monotheistic.

You don’t know what you are talking about no OT scholar has ever said that. You may be referring to any tom dick and Harry becoming a scholar. That is not how we classify scholars. We don’t classify scholarship based on well you were a first follower so you must be a scholar and not only that when you write it is divine. This is pure nonsense. I can teach stupid. Your link does not work

What Tanakh Scholar Actually Say


“So you are the pot calling the kettle black.”

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/scriptur.htm

“Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" notes that "a group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (p. 46).”

Jews would never change the new testament since it is not their book. So it was you Christians that changed every thing.

Plus if we asked Bart Erhman about the Tanakh he would also take the view it is corrupted just like the New Testament.

Again who cares what bart says.

“So nice job appealing to the Muslims since it backfires.
Your book is also corrupted”

Again it is not corrupted who is this Bruce guy.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
Your reply to my request for evidence that the bible is corrupt was as follows:

>How about all 66 of them.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

Did you actually read this site? The site is about how the modern TRANSLATIONS are corrupt because they are based on the minority manuscript text types.
The site concludes that the bible original texts are inerrant and nothing of the original has been lost over time.
===As follows:====
A problem developed, however, with the 20th century's proliferation of new Bible versions. It became necessary to study the history of the English Bible and the Greek text which had been used down through the centuries and compare that text with the claims of the "higher critics" who championed the minority text upon which the new versions are based. After careful study of the subject, the FEA concluded that the Textus Receptus, the underlying text upon which the Authorized King James Version is based, is the providentially preserved Greek text. The Textus Receptus was derived from the majority family of manuscripts used in the Greek-speaking church down through the centuries. This text was the divinely preserved text - an accurate rendition of the very originals (miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit) written by the apostles, and, in the Hebrew tongue, by the Old Testament prophets. The Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the divinely inspired original writings.
...But we also believe that the Bible Itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence supports the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration extends to the divinely superintended preservation of a pure text to this day. We have, therefore, an inspired Bible today in the sense that it is the accurate translation of the text once and finally inspired by God and recorded in the "original autographs," the majority text used down through the centuries in the Greek church. Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe.
==========
Thanks for the verification, now as to your claim that the bible books are corrupt. We are still waiting on the evidence.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
>>Jews DID NOT translate the entire Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint. In fact, they did only the Torah part - the five books of Moses. The rest was translated by non Jews, which probably explains some of the sheer ERRORS that totally CHANGE the entire meaning of the original language
The Septuagint was then later revised further by the Church
it's not a Jewish text in any way today and no Jews read it or use it. It's an established CHRISTIAN text.<
You are wasting my time with this nonsense.
===== CITATION:===
It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.).
===================
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations#3077

Did you see that "It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era..."
Further NOTE:
"The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day."
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
>BROKEN BONES
1. You quoted Psalm 22 "bones disjointed"
2. I replied that these Psalms are written in metaphorical poetic language.
3. I replied that Psalm 22 says nothing about broken bones.
4. I replied that "disjointed" does not mean "broken".
Conclusion:
Psalm 22 DOES NOT SAY anything about bones being broken. Hence, there is no contradiction between John's Gospel (19:36) quoting "None of his bones shall be broken" and Psalm 22 "bones out of joint".
You are making things up.
Do us a favor and read what we write.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You blathered:
>>Oh great duh so where is he are we not supposed to kiss him?. Obviously you have not read the OT there are mentioned there that people were resurrected are they your Deitys too. Maybe you need meds.
Here it is to remind you. (2 Kings Chapter 4; 2 Kings Chapter 13)<<
Of course we know about these men being revived from the dead. But these men did not resurrect into a glorious body. These men were still subject to all the weakness of Adam's children. Jesus was resurrected to eternal life, and ascended up to heaven (without a chariot). Just as Daniel spoke about those who would one day rise from the dead.
"12:2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. "
Whether you believe that or not, that is what the NT teaches. Fulfillment of Jesus resurrection as the first fruits of those that slept. He was not simply revived from the dead in a fallen Adamic body.
Stop the stupid.
Courage and Godspeed

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
1.About Psalm 2 you said:
"Talking about unintelligible there was no son of god here he was made up a thousand years later by christians. Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now."
2. My reply was:
>yeah, ok, so where is your evidence for this claim? All mss we have are pre-Christ and/or Christianity that demonstrate this reading. The issue is the translation, not the text.
3. You give two links.
4. The first one is for Psalm 2:
http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:does-psalm-212-really-say-qkiss-the-sonq&catid=46:because-you-asked&Itemid=87
5. The second link is about Psalm 22. Huh? Stop wasting our time.

The link for Psalm 2 states the following:
"The Hebrew of this verse (nashku var) has been debated for over 2000 years. On a translation level, it is difficult to know for sure how to most accurately render this phrase."

Conclusion:
Exactly my point. The issue is NOT the Hebrew text of Psalm 2, that is intact and sound without variant. The issue is the translation.
$Please just go away.
Courage and Godspeed

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
Your reply to my request for evidence that the bible is corrupt was as follows:

>How about all 66 of them.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

Did you actually read this site? The site is about how the modern TRANSLATIONS are corrupt because they are based on the minority manuscript text types.
The site concludes that the bible original texts are inerrant and nothing of the original has been lost over time.

MY RESPONSE
This is what you qouted
“The Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the divinely inspired original writings”
YOU SAID
===As follows:====
==========
Thanks for the verification, now as to your claim that the bible books are corrupt. We are still waiting on the evidence.

MY RESPONSE
I can teach stupid. Did you see what your fellow christian said he was imploring every one here not to follow the masoritic texts because they are corrupt and why didn’t you respond to him.

Derek Adams said... Interesting. The problem is if the oldest reading is accurate this is then clear evidence that post-Jesus, Jews decided to corrupt the Bible. How many times have they altered the masoretic text? and why isn't this clear evidence the masoretic should not be given precedent at all?

MY RESPONSE
What did I show you that it is your translations that are corrupt

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
>>Jews DID NOT translate the entire Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint. In fact, they did only the Torah part - the five books of Moses. The rest was translated by non Jews, which probably explains some of the sheer ERRORS that totally CHANGE the entire meaning of the original language
The Septuagint was then later revised further by the Church
it's not a Jewish text in any way today and no Jews read it or use it. It's an established CHRISTIAN text.
You are wasting my time with this nonsense.
===== CITATION:===
It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The ===================
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations#3077

MY RESPONSE
Let me explain it so even a child can understand. First of all just because it says Jewish encyclopedia does not mean it has anything to do with what Jews believe could have been written by any drunk in the street. In the encyclopedia it says this “It is not known when the other books of the Bible” (Jews do not call the other books a bible only the five books of Moses do they call a bible.)

YOU SAID
were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day.

MY RESPONSE

Who is this Ben Sira do you know I don’t. Second it could have been translated by any drunk in the street or by a Jew maybe. Jews that convert to Christianity are no longer Jews a Jew translating a text does not make it the official Jewish translation do you get it.
I said the Jews from the Septuagint translated only the Bible.

Third the Septuagint was commissioned by some drunken king and it is not to be used as an official translation since the Rabbis changed it. Now let me explain it so a little child understands I have heard many Christians say Christianity is Jewish since the first disciples were Jewish. Just because maybe some Jews espoused the christian position does not mean it is the Jewish position. Here are christiains espousing the Jewish position so are your books false now?

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/8284/ex-christian-ministers-now-active-orthodox-jews/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism

YOU SAID
Did you see that "It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era..."
Further NOTE:
"The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day."
MY RESPONSE
Read this.
http://oneinmessiah.net/TheLXX.htm
http://oneinmessiah.net/Septuagint.htm

But since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinical Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were seen as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic elements, preferring the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts.[2][5] As a result, early Jewish translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by Jewish Rabbanim have survived as rare fragments only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
>BROKEN BONES
1. You quoted Psalm 22 "bones disjointed"
2. I replied that these Psalms are written in metaphorical poetic language.

Yes and I said I agree so it has nothing to do with your god.

3. I replied that Psalm 22 says nothing about broken bones.
4. I replied that "disjointed" does not mean "broken".
Conclusion:
Psalm 22 DOES NOT SAY anything about bones being broken. Hence, there is no contradiction between John's Gospel (19:36) quoting "None of his bones shall be broken" and Psalm 22 "bones out of joint".
You are making things up.
Do us a favor and read what we write.
Courage and Godspeed.
April 23, 2012 9:51 AM

MY RESPONSE
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NIV

John 19:36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[a]

Now can you read it says “and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.” So again I ask you why would they disjoint his legs the Psalms says that the person in the Psalms was disjointed. So you ask me why did they spear him the answer is they did not you can see that this is all made up to fulfill a prophecy. The fact that some one says this is true is a sure indication that it is a lie. Again you can claim Psalms is met
Now if you are going to claim “metaphorical poetic language“ so this is not proof of any prophecy.

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
>BROKEN BONES
1. You quoted Psalm 22 "bones disjointed"
2. I replied that these Psalms are written in metaphorical poetic language.

Yes and I said I agree so it has nothing to do with your god.

3. I replied that Psalm 22 says nothing about broken bones.
4. I replied that "disjointed" does not mean "broken".
Conclusion:
Psalm 22 DOES NOT SAY anything about bones being broken. Hence, there is no contradiction between John's Gospel (19:36) quoting "None of his bones shall be broken" and Psalm 22 "bones out of joint".
You are making things up.
Do us a favor and read what we write.
Courage and Godspeed.
April 23, 2012 9:51 AM

MY RESPONSE
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NIV

John 19:36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[a]

Now can you read it says “and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.” So again I ask you why would they disjoint his legs the Psalms says that the person in the Psalms was disjointed. So you ask me why did they spear him the answer is they did not you can see that this is all made up to fulfill a prophecy. The fact that some one says this is true is a sure indication that it is a lie. Again you can claim Psalms is met
Now if you are going to claim “metaphorical poetic language“ so this is not proof of any prophecy.

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus said...
@NITEMARES791
1.About Psalm 2 you said:
"Talking about unintelligible there was no son of god here he was made up a thousand years later by christians. Also he died so how can anyone kiss him now."
2. My reply was:
>yeah, ok, so where is your evidence for this claim? All mss we have are pre-Christ and/or Christianity that demonstrate this reading. The issue is the translation, not the text.
3. You give two links.
4. The first one is for Psalm 2:
http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:does-psalm-212-really-say-qkiss-the-sonq&catid=46:because-you-asked&Itemid=87
5. The second link is about Psalm 22. Huh? Stop wasting our time.

The link for Psalm 2 states the following:
"The Hebrew of this verse (nashku var) has been debated for over 2000 years. On a translation level, it is difficult to know for sure how to most accurately render this phrase."

MY RESPONSE
The first link you gave read your original post yes I can teach stupid the second oops here is Psalm 2
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa2.pdf

Again let me remind you I was replying especially to this guy
Derek Adams said... Interesting. The problem is if the oldest reading is accurate this is then clear evidence that post-Jesus, Jews decided to corrupt the Bible. How many times have they altered the masoretic text? and why isn't this clear evidence the masoretic should not be given precedent at all?

YOU SAID
Conclusion:Exactly my point. The issue is NOT the Hebrew text of Psalm 2, that is intact and sound without variant. The issue is the translation.

MY RESPONSE
So you agree your fellow christian lied however you didn’t bother to comment on that.

Tychicus said...

One thing we have been talking about is the DDS Hebrew text of this verse. But there are some variants of the MT that support the verb often translated "pierced"
===================
BHS lists two variants in the critical apparatus:

k'rw ("a few mss", Kennicott gives seven), a 3 personal plural verb form from the biblical Hebrew root kara(h), meaning "they dug/pierced"

krw ("2 mss"; Kennicott adds "in the margin of three"), also a verb form. [Actually, this is the same word as k'rw, less the aleph which has 'intruded']

It should be noted that these variants occur in MT-family manuscripts.
http://christianthinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
===============

This fact adds to the evidence that the current MT reading is more than likely a result of corruption or misreading when being transcribed.

Again, this points to mss that were never touched by Christians and may be quite ancient.

Courage and Godspeed

Tychicus said...

Another fact, often overlooked is that Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome all translate Psalm 22:16 Hebrew text into Greek. All are translating a verb, not a noun. And all are translating into Greek some form of the same root "krw".

=========================
Aquila's second edition had a different rendering. He renders it by the same meaning (but different Greek words) as Symmachus (Jewish translator for Origin) and Jerome, meaning "they have bound/tied". Aquila used epedasan (aor of pedaw, "to shackle"), whereas Symmachus used hos zatountes dasai ("as seeking to bind"). Again, note that this rendering is both (a) a verb and; (b) not a lion...(smile)
http://christianthinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
====================
Three more witnesses to the fact that the Hebrew text was still prevalent in the Ancient world. Most importantly, Aquila was the Jewish apologist translator whose task was to "re-translate" the Hebrew into a Greek version "acceptable" to the post Christianity Jews. If Aquila translated a verb, then certainly, we have more strong evidence in our favor.

Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791

>Again let me remind you I was replying especially to this guy...

Ok, fine. I was not responding to Derek Adams. Don't try to make my posts replies to his.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
>Now if you are going to claim “metaphorical poetic language“ so this is not proof of any prophecy.

No, it is simply a case of "metaphoric poetic language" in a Psalm. I never said "disjointed" or "out of joint" bones was a fulfillment of any prophecy of the Messiah or Jesus in the NT. You are the one who keeps insisting that "disjointed"/"out of joint" is somehow evidence for/against Jesus being the Messiah.
What "disjointed" or "out of joint" has to do with John's citation of "Not one of his bones will be broken" as a fulfillment of prophecy by Christ, only you know.
You have no point to make except to argue with your self. Who can understand such bibble-babble.
Please go away.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
>What did I show you that it is your translations that are corrupt

The translations in the web site you posted:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

The "corrupt" translations are listed in this site are based on OTHER text type families! The translations we adhere to KJV, NAS, etc. read "pierced".

As for Psalm 22:16 "pierced", I guess you are going to say that MT variants and Aquila are also corrupt? But then, you need to revisit your argument.
Which is it, corrupt translations, or corrupt transcriptions?
Ancient Greek and Hebrew mss witness the reading "pierced".
The point is simple, the Hebrew/Greek text underlying "pierced" is ancient and has many witnesses Christian and Jewish.
Please go away!
Courage and Godspeed.

NITEMARES791 said...

YOU SAID
Tychicus has left a new comment on the post "Paul Williams' "Scholarship" Pierced Through":

One thing we have been talking about is the DDS Hebrew text of this verse. But there are some variants of the MT that support the verb often translated "pierced"

MY RESPONSE
Again let me explain it to you nothing supports you. All those things you found in a cave are not official Jewish documents. Like I explained it to the Christian lady Letitia just because there may have been a few jews following your god does not mean it was the official Jewish position.

If I was you I would not be to arrogant remember your god dies this is a fact agreed on by every one except the Islamic liars. There is no proof that he came back to life that is all made up. However, you know what if he came back to life and whipped those Jews and Romans that got him than hey maybe you would make a believer out of every one. Yes I know you are going to quote me all the professional pagan liars that he was resurrected.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec0.htm
Anon:
"On the Resurrection, however, no eyewitness wrote anything--not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve, nor any of the Seventy, nor any of the Five Hundred. All we have is Paul, who saw nothing but a 'revelation,' and who mentions no other kind of experience or evidence being reported by anyone."

"On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman
Finally, many suggest that the entire resurrection story -- the tomb, the visitation by the women, Jesus appearance to the disciples, his ascension, etc. are pure myths, taken from the many god-man resurrection myths of other religions in the Mediterranean and Middle East at the time.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

MY RESPONSE continued
This is my G-D challenges any other gods in the world to do like him.
Deuteronomy Chapter 4:33 Did ever a people hear God's voice speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live? 34 Or has any god performed miracles to come and take him a nation from the midst of a[nother] nation, with trials, with signs, and with wonders, and with war and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great awesome deeds, as all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?

Now you tell me has your god did with lots of witnesses anything that has not been done before. I even showed you resurrection was done before.

Read the verses below that is how we will know the true Messiah is if he can do what no other has done before. Has anyone ever did this before has your god did this? No. So you made up a bull story that he’s coming again what a joke you are.
When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel the Jewish people will be ingathered from exile and they will return, en masse, to Israel – Deut 30:3, Isaiah 11:1-12, Jeremiah 30:3, Ezekiel 11:17. (The Jewish people are still living in exile.)
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war – Micah 4:1-4, Hoseah 2:20, Isaiah 2:1-4. (Israel is now in a state of war.)


You may want to read this
WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?
http://www.ovrlnd.com/GeneralInformation/septuagint.html

In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes on page 13 "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype...

Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN' that the Greek Old Testament LXX had begun to be translated before 285BC. The evidence for this? Don't be silly; the Alexandrian Cult never deals with evidence. Every LXX manuscript cited in the Septuagint Concordance was written 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. They are as follows:"

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/faq/septugnt.html
Stewarton Bible School
is a Christian Information Service based in the town of Stewarton, Scotland.
The school's aim is to proclaim the Everlasting Gospel to the world:


The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text

"The mythological LXX or Septuagint is the most persistent spook to haunt orthodox Christianity since the myth that Christ was born in a cave. The theory is based on abstract speculation of the wildest sort without one piece of reliable documented evidence of ANY kind that there was ever on this earth one single copy of an OLD Testament in GREEK before the heading up of the school at Alexandria by Origen, one hundred years after the entire New Testament was complete, yet to this day there exists on every campus of every fundamental school in the United States the nebulous ghost of this non-existent spook

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said:
>>Again let me explain it to you nothing supports you. All those things you found in a cave are not official Jewish documents. Like I explained it to the Christian lady Letitia just because there may have been a few jews following your god does not mean it was the official Jewish position.
===========
This is really nonsense. What exactly is the "official Jewish Position"? The DDS mss support the MT variants recorded in the BHS as well as Kennicott's work as before the time of Christ. The fact that these variants are also present in the MT is a strong testimony against the claim that they are somehow not the "official Jewish position". One might attempt to say that the DDS mss are not accepted, but the MT variants were certainly within the "official Jewish positon".
Moreso, Kennicott's variants where published in 1784-1788. Apparently, in 1760 Kennicott issued proposals for collating all Hebrew manuscripts of date prior to the invention of printing. In the course of this work 615 Hebrew manuscripts and 52 printed editions of the Bible were either wholly or partially collated.
More importantly, Kennicott had the approval and confirmation of the Jewish community for his efforts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kennicott)
1. A more pleasing episode of external relations during Tevele Schiff's Rabbinate was collaboration with the Oxford scholar, Dr. Kennicott, while he was engaged in his great work on the text of the Hebrew Bible. There are extant the letters of recommendation to Jewish scholars abroad which he received in 1770 from the two senior London communities, the Great Synagogue's being signed by the Rosh haKahal Aaron Franks and the Warden Aaron Goldsmid, as well as by the Rabbi himself. (http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Susser/roth/cheleven.htm)
2. In fact he received letters of introduction from the London Ashkenazim and Sephardim, signed by their Chief Rabbis, in the case of the Ashkenazim that would be Rabbi David Tevele Schiff, the Chasam Sofer's rebbe's rebbe. It is clear that they perceived this project as but an extension of the traditional Jewish work of experts who aimed at fixing and preserving the integrity of the text of Tanakh, this being the days before Discovery Seminars, Torah Codes and phony legends about the pristine state of the text of Tanakh. (http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/01/kennicotts-textual-variations-of-hebrew.html)
(to be continued)

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
Also, I think you claimed that the translation was somehow corrupt, but I discovered something about the KJV.
The Mikraot Gedolot of Ben Hayyim served as the [Hebrew OT] textus receptus for the King James Version of the Bible in 1611. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikraot_Gedolot)
The MG of B. Hayyim is an accepted publication in the Jewish community and still used today.
Again, we see that the translation "pierced" as well as the Hebrew text reading of "krw" or "k'rw" are certainly within the "official Jewish position".
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said:
>>"On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman..."
===========
I don't know where you got this from, but it is baloney. How is it that someone can exclude witnesses to an event with phrases like "no neutral or hostile witnesses"? This is merely a convenient way of dismissing the evidence.
1. The apostles were hardly "not neutral", the gospels portray them as completely surprised. Better yet, when the women came and told them, the apostles did not believe them. But then you don't read the texts you are criticizing. And doubting Thomas certainly qualifies as a "hostile witness". Thomas refused to believe until he had seen for himself and felt wounds with his own hands.
Although, the NT is a single book today, it consists of letters and gospels (a particular genre of literature) by different eye witnesses written at different times during the first Century.
2. Further, Tacitus a Roman Historian (AD 56 - AD 117) does infact record that Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate, etc.
===Begin Quote:===
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. (The Annals 15: 44)
====End Quote:====
Notice how Tacitus speaks from his own knowledge of who Christus was and what happened to him. He is not merely stating what the Christians believed. True, Tacitus does not say anything about the resurrection, it is apparent from the text that the "superstition" is that this Christus is still alive despite his death on the cross.
Please inform yourself before posting such nonsense.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said:
>>Finally, many suggest that the entire resurrection story -- the tomb, the visitation by the women, Jesus appearance to the disciples, his ascension, etc. are pure myths, taken from the many god-man resurrection myths of other religions in the Mediterranean and Middle East at the time.
=============
This is simply false. I have seen this false claim so oft repeated. But there is a very good scholarly work that refutes and exposes this "other religions..." lie. I have spent a lot of my own time researching and debunking this in my spare time as an employee at the Library of Congress. But I found an excellent expose refuting the entire "myth". Pardon me for posting this link, but the person speaks with scholars and reads from source texts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh84h7Caf_E&feature=related)
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said:
>>"On the Resurrection, however, no eyewitness wrote anything--not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve, nor any of the Seventy, nor any of the Five Hundred. All we have is Paul, who saw nothing but a 'revelation,' and who mentions no other kind of experience or evidence being reported by anyone."
================
According to you response, I think that Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) would qualify as a "hostile witness". He was not a believer, but knew the story of Christ and held it in complete contempt.
1. Saul of Tarsus was an hostile witness. Again, another example directly from the text contradicting these uninformed declarations.
2. "None of the Twelve... wrote anything..." Huh? What about the Gospels? Wow, this is really ignorant and arrogant. The fact that these events were recorded by one person though others were present is somehow a problem? Amazing, an eye witness report is not good enough but there must be some other criteria? You are really absurd and desperate.
3. Saul of Tarsus met the Resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9 & 22). You said that Paul has a "revelation" and that "no other kind of experience or evidence". The idea that this was a psychological event without any corresponding reality is simply contrary to the text. Paul says that those with him saw the bright light and heard the sound of the voice. The men that were with Paul did not see Jesus and did not understand the sound they heard as understandable language. (Acts 9:7 & 22:9). Here it is clearly written in the account that others with Paul also witnessed some of the event. There was real physical empirical evidence that something was happening to Paul on the road to Damascus. Something was blocking their path and and Paul understood the sound as language and was speaking to the being these men could not see. They did see the bight light, they did hear the voice. It was real, not just in Paul's mind. (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/acts/acts-9-7.html)
Conclusion:
So, once again, your silly copy and paste is confuted by the facts and the text.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You wrote:
>>"On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman"
===========
I would like to add something refuting this false accusation.
To say that the eye witness accounts are not good enough, is to refuse to acknowledge the time period and circumstances in which these events happened.
Jesus spoke of his death and resurrection to his disciples. He did declare it to others at times (John 2), but mostly he spoke and taught his disciples about his coming resurrection.
What is important about the eye witness accounts, is in the 1st Century, who could identify that this person was Jesus of Nazareth better than his disciples?
He appeared first to his disciples BECAUSE they could identify him. He showed them his hands and his feet. He calmed their suspected fears that he was a ghost. He demonstrated to them with many proofs (Acts 1) that he was Jesus of Nazareth. He went though the Scriptures and declared how he had fulfilled prophecy and how the Messiah was supposed to go through this and be resurrected.
It is simply common sense that Jesus would do this given that there was no video, no fingerprinting, no photo id, etc.
Moreso, this would become the heart of the ministry. Jesus would send them out. Their witness would be at the heart of the message. Jesus chose them for this purpose.
This was done to prove that God is able to do this through men, and through Jesus (a man) eternally joined to the Word/Son of God -- incarnate. And mostly, that God did do it with supernatural power in the world, in the minds and hearts of his followers, and in his prophetic en scripture-ed word.
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
You said:
>> "offical Jewish position"
===============
The "official" Jewish position is well known.
1. Reject God's revelation and presence to His face.
2. Reject, persecute, and kill God's prophets and annointed.
3. Reject God's word and testimony for your own idolatry and fleshly desires.
4. Reject the total inerrant inspired revelation of God as containing the word of God. The Law is word for word inspired, but beyond that all other Scripture is only partially inspired.
5. Reject the true worship of God for your own traditions. Your traditions nullify the commandments of God. Your traditions are taught in place of the commandments of God. Your rabbinic commentaries are taught in place of the true scripture.
Conclusion:
You have no temple. A mosque stands on the temple grounds. You have no sacrifice, no worship. God's revelation ended 400 years before Christ. And now you have the condemned teaching of the Pharisees as your guide. Blind guides. God judged your people by taking away the temple. But you still adhere to the false teachings and interpretations of the Pharisees. How hard is it to understand that you would reject the corner stone whom God placed before you. How hard is it to understand that you would reject the Messiah as you rejected Moses, the prophets, and others whom God sent. The "official" Jewish position was judged in 70 AD and remains under God's judgment. When the "official" Jewish position is the same as Scripture, then the Temple will be restored.
"For the iniquity of my people was he stricken"
Courage and Godspeed.

Tychicus said...

@NITEMARES791
Ben Sirah (132 BC)
You seem to have a big problem with attempting to change the argument when you are losing.
It is hard to understand your points about the LXX, but I am going to make this simple and to the point.
P.1. You said that the Jews only translated the Pentateuch into Greek.
P.2. You said that the LXX other portions were translated by non-Jews.
P.3. You infer that the LXX may have been corrupted because it was not translated by Jews.
===================
A.1. Ben Sirah lived and wrote in the 1st Century BC. He translated the Hebrew book of his Grandfather into Greek. In his prologue Ben states that the Law and Prophets were already translated into Greek. We have both the Hebrew and Greek text of "The Wisdom" dating before the time of Christ. (DDS and Masada mss)
A.2. Aquila translated the Hebrew into Greek. He was a Jew and his translation was approved by Jews. Aquila translated a verb from the Hebrew text he used. Aquila did not see the Hebrew word "lion". Aquila translated a Hebrew verb.
A.3. The Council of Jamnia was held about 90 AD. The approval/rejection what was currently being used or was questionable at the time (90 AD).
A.4. The original mss of the LXX have not been found by they have been transcribed over time and can be found in the various text forms we have today.
Conclusion:
Ben Sirah could not have been a Christian. The assumption that he was not a Jew is without evidence. Your inference that Ben Sirah was a nobody and a non-jew are baseless nonsense without evidence. Aquila was not a Christian. Aquila did not corrupt the Hebrew Text he was translating, but was making a new translation of the text. Aquila translated a Hebrew verb not a Hebrew noun. Aquila's Greek translation is evidence that the Hebrew text was not "lion". You have no good argument against Aquila's Greek translation. The Council of Jamnia is irrelevant to the argument. All Jamnia proves is that the LXX of the OT was in use up to the 90 AD. Rather it proves my point, that the LXX OT was accepted by Jews until the Council of Jamnia rejected it. But then, it did not reject the Greek of Aquila or the Hebrew text that Aquila used to translate into Greek. Once again, Jamnia proves nothing. Jamnia is an mis fire. Finally, since we do not have the original LXX mss of the OT, you have yet to prove they were somehow corrupted or changed to favor the pierced reading. Certainly you have yet to demonstrate that the LXX OT was corrupted by Christians. Calling into question the authenticity of the letter of Aristeas is simply going to result in alot of Jews of Antiquity looking like fools or liars. What exactly did the Council of Jamnia condemn something that never happened? You are arguing with yourself!
Checkmate
Courage and Godspeed.

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus Said This is really nonsense. What exactly is the "official Jewish Position"? The DDS mss support the MT variants recorded in the BHS as well as Kennicott's work as before the time of Christ.

MY RESPONSE
Benjamin Kennicott (4 April 1718 – 18 September 1783) was an English churchman and Hebrew scholar.
He lived in 1718 how is this work as before the time of Christ.

. Tychicus Said
The fact that these variants are also present in the MT is a strong testimony against the claim that they are somehow not the "official Jewish position". One might attempt to say that the DDS mss are not accepted, but the MT variants were certainly within the "official Jewish positon".

MY RESPONSE
What are you talking about variants we are talking if the word is pierced or like a lion.

. Tychicus Said
Moreso, Kennicott's variants where published in 1784-1788. Apparently, in 1760 Kennicott issued proposals for collating all Hebrew manuscripts of date prior to the invention of printing. In the course of this work 615 Hebrew manuscripts and 52 printed editions of the Bible were either wholly or partially collated.
More importantly, Kennicott had the approval and confirmation of the Jewish community for his efforts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kennicott)

MY RESPONSE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kennicott
This article says nothing about confirmation of Jewish community
I don’t know why you are quoting Kennicot again the question is is the word lion or pierced

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/01/kennicotts-textual-variations-of-hebrew.html
Ultimately a lot of people who had been eagerly anticipating his work were disappointed that it didn't turn up anything significant. Loads and loads and loads of variations, but it produced no radically new understanding of the Bible

(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

. Tychicus Said
1. A more pleasing episode of external relations during Tevele Schiff's Rabbinate was collaboration with the Oxford scholar, Dr. Kennicott, while he was engaged in his great work on the text of the Hebrew Bible. There are extant the letters of recommendation to Jewish scholars abroad which he received in 1770 from the two senior London communities, the Great Synagogue's being signed by the Rosh haKahal Aaron Franks and the Warden Aaron Goldsmid, as well as by the Rabbi himself.
(http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Susser/roth/cheleven.htm)
MY RESPONSE
http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Susser/roth/cheleven.htm
This web site says that there

A more pleasing episode of external relations during Tevele Schiff's Rabbinate was collaboration with the Oxford scholar, Dr. Kennicott, while he was engaged in his great work on the text of the Hebrew Bible.

Again just because it may appear that it is on Jewish web site does not mean it is official Judaism

. Tychicus Said
text of Tanakh. (http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/01/kennicotts-textual-variations-of-hebrew.html)
MY RESPONSE
These letters are a fake no Jew would write on paper filled with Christian theology.
No Jew let alone a Rabbi would write on paper with angels and make the names larger. This was probably written by Kennecott himself.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus said @NITEMARES791
Also, I think you claimed that the translation was somehow corrupt, but I discovered something about the KJV.
The Mikraot Gedolot of Ben Hayyim served as the [Hebrew OT] textus receptus for the King James Version of the Bible in 1611. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikraot_Gedolot)
The MG of B. Hayyim is an accepted publication in the Jewish community and still used today.
Again, we see that the translation "pierced" as well as the Hebrew text reading of "krw" or "k'rw" are certainly within the "official Jewish position".

MY RESPONSE.
This is from the web site you provided. It Cleary states that is not used today so I don’t know why you would lie with your own web site you provided.
“The Mikraot Gedolot of Ben Hayyim, though hailed as an extraordinary achievement, was riddled with thousands of technical errors. Also, the very first printing of the Mikra'ot Gedolot was edited by Felix Pratensis, an apostate Jew. Furthermore, Bomberg, a Christian, had requested an imprimatur from the Pope. Such facts were not compatible with the supposed Jewish nature of the work; Bomberg had to produce a brand new edition under the direction of proper Jewish editors. Nevertheless, this first edition served as the textual model for nearly all later editions until modern times. With regard to the Biblical text, many of Ben Hayyim's errors were later corrected by Menahem Lonzano and Shlomo Yedidiah Norzi. It is only in the last generation that fresh editions of the Mikraot Gedolot based directly on manuscript evidence have been published.”

As far as using it in the kjv that does not mean it was not altered as it clearly says here that it was altered to fit the church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy

The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England

Jews do not belong to the church of England.

Again you should read the web sites I give you so you don’t act stupid. There is no pierced in the DSS. I posted some of it in case you are lazy to open it.
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa22.pdf
The dating of the Nahal Hever fragment5 suggests that the discrepancy could
be the result of exactly the reverse of the previous claim. Namely, it could be
the product of an attempt by second century CE (early) Christians to alter the
original כארי to read כארו , thereby making it appear like the verb כָּרוּ , they
dug. This would have accomplished the effect of aligning the word with the
events of the early first century CE. It is also interesting to note that in the
LXX (the Christian translation into Greek of the Hebrew Bible), where this
verse is numbered as Psalms 21:17, the reading is ωρυξαν (oruksan), which
stems from the root ορύσσω (orusso), to dig, as in [to] dig a trench.
Liddell & Scott (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-
English Lexicon) do not list a meaning of pierce for this word, and the
identical usages occur only in early Christian renditions (Arndt and Gingrich,
Lexicon of the Greek Testament).
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID
The "official" Jewish position is well known.
1. Reject God's revelation and presence to His face.

MY RESPONSE
Actually it is the Jews that accepted the true creators presence. It is you that rejected it.

Exodus Chapter 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the
Tychicus SAID
2. Reject, persecute, and kill God's prophets and annointed.

MY RESPONSE

Well yes the Christians didn’t persecute any prophets their god didn’t deem it necessary to send any prophets to them. Ask the owner of the blog here in many debates he admits that Christians did very bad things however your god didn’t send a prophet to warn them. So of course you could not persecute them.
Tychicus SAID
3. Reject God's word and testimony for your own idolatry and fleshly desires.
MY RESPONSE
Again let me remind you it is you that rejected the true creators word and worship idols.

Deuteronomy Chapter 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire-- 16 lest ye deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Tychicus SAID
4. Reject the total inerrant inspired revelation of God as containing the word of God. The Law is word for word inspired, but beyond that all other Scripture is only partially inspired.
MY RESPONSE

I just showed you that the Jews did accept it and it was you that rejected the words of the true creator. What are you talking about how do you know what was inspired by G-D or not. Do you make these things up as you go along.

Read these verses it clearly says “I am the LORD” many times

Exodus Chapter 6: 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel: I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments; 7 and I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am the LORD.'

Now look at your false god what he said. Any one on the street can say this did he prove it like this. “I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm,”

“What did Jesus say of himself-John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM”( John 8:58). Jn.5:18, “He said God was his Father, making himself equal with God. “

Your god did every thing a man does making you guys go nuts with thousands of articles answering for him. For instance your god in your books prayed why have you forsaken me. This has kept Sam Shamoun busy answering for him with hundreds of articles, Also your god died which produced another hundred articles how can your god die. Of course they are all baloney.

Funny how Jews don’t need all these answers our G-D let it be known to us that he is the true creator. Here the true creator challenges any false gods if they can do something like this.

Deuteronomy Chapter 4:34 Or has any god performed miracles to come and take him a nation from the midst of a[nother] nation, with trials, with signs, and with wonders, and with war and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great awesome deeds, as all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
(To be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID

5. Reject the true worship of God for your own traditions. Your traditions nullify the commandments of God. Your traditions are taught in place of the commandments of God. Your rabbinic commentaries are taught in place of the true scripture.
MY RESPONSE

Not to do prohibited labor on the seventh day Ex. 20:10

Tell me do you Christians keep the Sabbath NO so it is you that nullify the commandments of God

Not to eat leaven bread on the afternoon of the 14th day of Nissan Deut. 16:3 109 To destroy all leaven bread on 14th day of Nissan Ex. 12:15 110 Not to eat leaven bread all seven days of Passover Ex. 13:3

Do you keep the Passover and all the holidays mentioned in the Bible. NO so it is you that nullify the commandments of God

Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4

Do you eat only kosher foods. NO so it is you that nullify the commandments of God

Here is a list of all the laws in the Bible can you show which one was nullified by the Rabbis.
http://www.aish.com/h/sh/se/48945081.html

Tychicus SAID
Conclusion:
You have no temple. A mosque stands on the temple grounds. You have no sacrifice, no worship.
MY RESPONSE

What the heck you talking about Abraham had no temple and no sacrifice are you saying he didn’t worship the true creator.
Tychicus SAID
God's revelation ended 400 years before Christ. And now you have the condemned teaching of the Pharisees as your guide.

MY RESPONSE
No, it ended after G-D gave the bible to the Jewish people. Actually your revelation ended when your god died and now you have the condemned teachings of madmen.

Tychicus SAID
Blind guides. God judged your people by taking away the temple. But you still adhere to the false teachings and interpretations of the Pharisees. How hard is it to understand that you would reject the corner stone whom God placed before you. How hard is it to understand that you would reject the Messiah as you rejected Moses,
MY RESPONSE

It is you that rejected the teachings of Moses the Jews did not reject it. Again let me remind you of the verse above.
Exodus Chapter 14:31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD, and in His servant Moses.

How hard is it for you to understand that you rejected the true Messiah and followed a false one.
Deuteronomy Chapter 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire-- 16 lest ye deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

Do you think after G-D telling his people not to worship male or female than he comes in the form of a male and says worship me. Again it is you that worship idolatry.

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID
the prophets, and others whom God sent.
MY RESPONSE

Like I said your god didn’t send prophets so you could not reject them.

Tychicus SAID
The "official" Jewish position was judged in 70 AD and remains under God's judgment. When the "official" Jewish position is the same as Scripture, then the Temple will be restored.
"For the iniquity of my people was he stricken"
MY RESPONSE

Yes and your god was judged for the falsity he taught and was killed a horrible death.
Let me remind you the Temple was destroyed before and rebuild before your god ever came so the destruction of the Temple had nothing to do with your god.

Tell me something the other Christian here said that you had martyrs that martyred themselves for your god. Has your god saved any of these martyrs than I would be impressed. I remind you to read Daniel and see what the true creator can do.
.


Tychicus SAID@NITEMARES791You said:
>>"On the Resurrection, however, no eyewitness wrote anything--not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve, nor any of the Seventy, nor any of the Five Hundred. All we have is Paul, who saw nothing but a 'revelation,' and who mentions no other kind of experience or evidence being reported by anyone."
================
According to you response, I think that Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) would qualify as a "hostile witness". He was not a believer, but knew the story of Christ and held it in complete contempt.
MY RESPONSE

I don’t know what he would qualify as.
Tychicus SAID

1. Saul of Tarsus was an hostile witness. Again, another example directly from the text contradicting these uninformed declarations.
MY RESPONSE

Excuse me what exactly does this contradict.
Tychicus SAID

2. "None of the Twelve... wrote anything..." Huh? What about the Gospels? Wow, this is really ignorant and arrogant. The fact that these events were recorded by one person though others were present is somehow a problem? Amazing, an eye witness report is not good enough but there must be some other criteria? You are really absurd and desperate.
MY RESPONSE

Yes you are not absurd believing a man who you don’t know who he is. You base your whole faith on the testimony of one man and you are calling me absurd. I think you need a mental hospital.
Tychicus SAID

3. Saul of Tarsus met the Resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9 & 22). You (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/acts/acts-9-7.html)
Conclusion:
So, once again, your silly copy and paste is confuted by the facts and the text.
Courage and Godspeed.
MY RESPONSE

Again you base your whole faith in the testimony of one man. Yet you claim the Jews went against the law, read the Bible.

Deuteronomy Chapter 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

This applies even if Moses was to testify against some one you would still need another witness. Yet you claim by one witness you establish a whole new religion amazing and im the absurd one.

Also let me remind you that two witnesses is needed only in cases of Torah law however revelation needs 600,000 witnesses. That is why G-D did not give the Torah to Abraham, Jacob or Isaac or the twelve sons of Jacob. Did your god give his revelation in front of 600,000 people. NO.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID@NITEMARES791You wrote:
>>"On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman"
===========
I would like to add something refuting this false accusation.
To say that the eye witness accounts are not good enough, is to refuse to acknowledge the time period and circumstances in which these events happened.
Jesus spoke of his death and resurrection to his disciples. He did declare it to others at times (John 2), but mostly he spoke and taught his disciples about his coming resurrection.
MY RESPONSE

How do you know this. How do you know it wasn’t made up after the false followers were embarrassed that their god died.
Tychicus SAID
What is important about the eye witness accounts, is in the 1st Century, who could identify that this person was Jesus of Nazareth better than his disciples?
He appeared first to his disciples BECAUSE they could identify him. He showed them his hands and his feet. He calmed their suspected fears that he was a ghost. He demonstrated to them with many proofs (Acts 1) that he was Jesus of Nazareth. He went though the Scriptures and declared how he had fulfilled prophecy and how the Messiah was supposed to go through this and be resurrected.
It is simply common sense that Jesus would do this given that there was no video, no fingerprinting, no photo id, etc.
MY RESPONSE

No it is not common sense it would have made more sense if he came to the Pharisees and the Romans who you say persecuted him and told them hey I got you I’m alive you cant kill me. Again the reason he didn’t do this is because the whole story is made up by his false followers.

Tychicus SAID
Moreso, this would become the heart of the ministry. Jesus would send them out. Their witness would be at the heart of the message. Jesus chose them for this purpose.
This was done to prove that God is able to do this through men, and through Jesus (a man) eternally joined to the Word/Son of God -- incarnate. And mostly, that God did do it with supernatural power in the world, in the minds and hearts of his followers, and in his prophetic en scripture-ed word.

MY RESPONSE
Your god didn’t do anything he died. Why did he tell them to go out and deliver the message if he was alive why didn’t he go out and do it himself. Again let me explain it to you these false followers were duped into believing your god. However since he died they were the laughing stock of the world. So they had to come up with some fairy tale to explain why he died and make up that he was resurrected. Tell me if your god was resurrected can you tell me where he is now. Yeah give me some baloney story he went up to heaven without a chariot. Cant you see how stupid this is. Were you one of Harold Camping's followers.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID @NITEMARES791
You said:
>>"On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman..."
===========
I don't know where you got this from, but it is baloney. How is it that someone can exclude witnesses to an event with phrases like "no neutral or hostile witnesses"? This is merely a convenient way of dismissing the evidence.
1. The apostles were hardly "not neutral", the gospels portray them as completely surprised. Better yet, when the women came and told them, the apostles did not believe them. But then you don't read the texts you are criticizing. And doubting Thomas certainly qualifies as a "hostile witness". Thomas refused to believe until he had seen for himself and felt wounds with his own hands.
Although, the NT is a single book today, it consists of letters and gospels (a particular genre of literature) by different eye witnesses written at different times during the first Century.
2. Further, Tacitus a Roman Historian (AD 56 - AD 117) does infact record that Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate, etc.
===Begin Quote:===
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. (The Annals 15: 44) ====End Quote:====

MY RESPONSE

Yes and when you get exquisite tortures you don’t say it is from the true creator punishing you however when it happens to the Jews than they are being punished. Read psalms Pslalms chapter 34:20 Many evils befall the righteous, but the Lord saves him from them all.
Tychicus SAID
Notice how Tacitus speaks from his own knowledge of who Christus was and what happened to him. He is not merely stating what the Christians believed. True, Tacitus does not say anything about the resurrection, it is apparent from the text that the "superstition" is that this Christus is still alive despite his death on the cross.
Please inform yourself before posting such nonsense.
MY RESPONSE

I should inform myself? Cant you see the babble you repeat from lying web sites.
This is when your god died(Friday 3rd, April, 33 AD) this guy Tacitus was born in ad 56 that is 23 years later than your god died. Figure even if he wrote his book when he was twenty years old that would be 43 years later. Now you are telling me some bull story that no one but those who believed in him before saw him for the whole of these 43 years. Yes im absurd. It is funny the muslims claim that a king in India saw the moon split and they have a letter from him. What is funnier is you and I laugh at that. Again your books were made up.
(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus SAID @NITEMARES791
You said:
>>Finally, many suggest that the entire resurrection story -- the tomb, the visitation by the women, Jesus appearance to the disciples, his ascension, etc. are pure myths, taken from the many god-man resurrection myths of other religions in the Mediterranean and Middle East at the time.
=============
This is simply false. I have seen this false claim so oft repeated. But there is a very good scholarly work that refutes and exposes this "other religions..." lie. I have spent a lot of my own time researching and debunking this in my spare time as an employee at the Library of Congress. But I found an excellent expose refuting the entire "myth". Pardon me for posting this link, but the person speaks with scholars and reads from source texts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh84h7Caf_E&feature=related)

MY RESPONSE

This an hour video and I’m not making their claims I’m saying that the followers made up the story and no scholar can refute it.
There is nothing scholarly about claiming that since the first followers of your god wrote their books early that they were telling the truth.

Now go read this http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm Your god had no problem with this since I don’t see any mention of it in your books and your god didn’t deem it necessary to send them a prophet like the G-D of the Jews sent them. Now show me what the Pharisees did and what was their evil teachings. It is funny I asked a Christian who admitted that Christians did bad things during the crusades etc why didn’t your god send a prophet to warn them about the evil they were doing. His reply was they would not have listened. So again what you claim the evil Jews did Is actually what you do. How long you want to go on with your false god. Read this and learn the truth. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/?searchword=blumenthal&searchphrase=all&limit=&ordering=newest&view=search&Itemid=99999999&option=com_search
Supplement to Contra Brown The Elephant and the suit

Read this and this is what your god sanctioned. Yet you have the nerve to call the Pharisees bad?
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
.
Show me where your god punished you like you say he punished the Jews. Let me warn you the true creator will take revenge.

NITEMARES791 said...

Here is what your Christian scholar says.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-4-third-century/origen/a-letter-from-origen-to-africanus.html?p=2

“we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Origen (English pronunciation: /ˈɒrɪdʒən/; Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs), or Origen Adamantius (184/185 – 253/254),[1] was an early Christian Alexandrian scholar and theologian, and one of the most distinguished writers of the early Church. As early as the fourth century, his orthodoxy was suspect, largely because he believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, along with apokatastasis, or universal reconciliation, ideas acknowledged to be beyond the pale of Christianity.[2] Today he is generally regarded as one of the Church Fathers.[3][4]…

Origen excelled in multiple branches of theological scholarship. For instance, he was the greatest textual critic of the early Church….

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus Said
@NITEMARES791
P.2. You said that the LXX other portions were translated by non-Jews.
P.3. You infer that the LXX may have been corrupted because it was not translated by Jews.
===================
A.1. Ben Sirah )
A.2. Aquila translated the Hebrew into Greek. He was a Jew and his translation was A.3. The Council of Jamnia was held about 90 AD. The approval/rejection what was currently being used or was questionable at the time (90 AD).
A.4. The original mss of the LXX have not been found by they have been transcribed over time and can be found in the various text forms we have today.
Conclusion:
Checkmate

My response
What is the translation of Ka'ari? Like a lion?
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:what-is-the-translation-of-kaari-like-a-lion&catid=44:crucifixion&Itemid=489

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa22.pdf

My web sites show the DSS picture

Here is your checkmate can you show me these translations or as it seems they were all made up by your lying web site. http://christianthinktank.com/ps22cheat.html

NITEMARES791 said...

Tychicus Before you start responding I suggest you read this first.
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/38085/
“All of the very early translators (except the somewhat later Targumic writers, doing the interpretive-paraphrase thing) obviously had textual variants in the Hebrew text in front of them (or emended the text because of the difficulties mentioned above) as they translated--none of them had "as a lion" in front of them! All o All of the very early translators (except the somewhat later a lion" in front of them!”

This is an extremely misleading claim. For one, the only authoritative translation up to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE was a translation of the Torah alone by Jewish scholars in the 3rd Century BCE. It was four centuries before any authoritative translation in any language was made. So to speak of "all of the very early translators" is a non-starter. Not until Onkelos (Torah, in Aramaic) and Aqilas (Tanach, in Greek) - who may or may not have been the same person - in the 2nd Century CE was there another authoritative translation of the Torah and/or Nach.

Second, this person is obscuring a few other facts. One, there were not multiple translations of the Psalms into Aramaic, so to speak of "Targumic writers" is false. Two, the one Targum on Psalm 22:17 follows the MT, using כאריא, so to call it "interpretive-paraphrase thing" is dishonest in this case.
The great Jewish translator Aquila (125 AD), in his first edition of his Greek translation of this passage, rendered this by aschuan--"ashamed" or "disgraced" (reading ka'wr, instead of ka'rw, a simple case of transposition of letters--which he corrected in his second edition) [instead of "as a lion"!] [KD, vol 5, in. loc.(p.318ff)]
“Aquila's second edition had a different rendering. He renders it by the same meaning (but different Greek words) as Symmachus (Jewish translator for Origin) and Jerome, meaning "they have bound/tied". Aquila used epedasan (aor of pedaw, "to shackle"), whereas Symmachus used hos zatountes dasai ("as seeking to bind"). Again, note that this rendering is both (a) a verb and; (b) not a lion...(smile)
The LXX (earlier than Aq/Sym/Jerome) and the Syriac (about the same time as Aquila) both have the same Hebrew word in front of them, but understand the root meaning of "to dig" [kara(h) I]. They both see the verb "they pierced" in front of them. The Hebrew root would have been the same root as found in Psalm 7.15 ("a hole he digs") kara(h). It is interesting in that the Syriac is aware of the LXX, but shows no preference for using the LXX over the proto-MT of the time [Mikra:296]”

This person does not know what they are talking about when it comes to Hebrew, and proves it by using the ' after "ka," despite arguing against the standard MT text. This only makes sense when reading the kaf as a preposition and is used to break up the preposition and the root, as is the case with ka'ari (ka = like, ari = lion).

(to be continued)

NITEMARES791 said...

However, this person (and Christendom) is arguing that the word is karu, in which case the kaf is a consonant, and the ' is pointless and separates a consonant from a consonant. Yet he still uses it as if he knows what he is talking about. They are left in the embarassing position of having to explain how a root of KRH suddenly takes on an alef in its midst when there is no alef in that word, neither in Hebrew nor Aramaic.

The simple fact is there is no uniformity in the Greek and Latin translations of this Psalm, showing that they were all attempting to interpret a nonsense word, rather than translating the actual word. Not even the GT authors attempted to stretch Psalm 22:16 to apply to Yeshu. Not a single one of them. The MT and Targum on the Psalm (whoever made it) both support "like a lion", and the so-called "vav" in the DSS for Psalm 22:16 is not unique, as there are a number of elongated yods in various manuscripts from those caves. Only the Greek translations diverge from this.


Here is a Christian who left Christianity and he has no bias to side with anyone read what he has to say.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/pierce.html
My website is primarily about my rejection of Christianity. However quite often I do get e-mails from Christians, and other theists (including Muslims, deists etc) fielding questions about atheism. Given below is a summary of the answers I have given to the most common of those queries.

Conclusion
In our long analysis we can make the following conclusions
We are certain that there is no prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b. There are two alternate readings in the Hebrew text circulating in the time around the turn of the common era; the first, kaari ("like a lion"), obviously has no relation to any crucifixion; the second, kaaru may be meaningless, but even if it is meaningful, none of the meaning guessed at by the ancient independent versions (Septuagint, Jerome's Psalm, Symmachus and Aquila) or by modern scholars compels a reading of "piercing". None of the early Christian writers, right up to 150 CE, interpreted Psalm 22:16b to be a direct reference to the crucifixion.

The reading as it stands in the Masoretic Text, "like a lion" is still the most probable reading, for it fits into the imagery of the whole of Psalm 22 better than the guesses of modern scholars or the ancient translators.

Tychicus said...

Here is the argument minimized but irrefutable:
1. Aquila translation of Psalm 22.16b is "ashamed" and/or "dig/pierce". Either way Aquila translates a verb from the Hebrew text he is reading into a Greek verb.
2. Symmachus translation of Psalm 22.16b is "as they were seeking to bind my hands and my feet" Again, Symmachus translates from a Hebrew verb (seems like an infinitive prepositional phrase actually) into a Greek verb/infinitive.
3. The BHS there are 3-10 Manuscripts with KAF-ALEF-RESH-VAV and 2 with KAF-RESH-VAV. This is from Kennicott's work "Vetus testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus" (1776–80).
4. The DSS has Psalm 22.17 occurs in one of these scrolls from Nahal Hever (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4) as KAF-RESH-VAV.
==========
Field Origen's Hexapla : Psalm 22:17
Aquila & Symmachus
http://archive.org/stream/origenhexapla02unknuoft#page/119/mode/1up
=========
5. I found a really excellent page with much much more.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/3177
Conclusion:
The issue is the primary reading in the MT text family. The different text and translation are argued for in the Jewish scholarly community over the centuries. The theology surrounding this verse is really not an issue at all. The real problem is between Jewish scholars.
The facts are that the Hebrew Mss reflect a reading that was a VERB in Psalm 22:16b. That reading is very old and persists to this day. The translation of the Hebrew verb into a Greek verb has been done by Jewish translators.
There is simply no way of avoiding the obvious fact that Psalm 22:16b presented Aquila and Symmachus an Hebrew Verb. These translators were not Christian nor where they influenced by Christian doctrine.
Nothing can be said to change these facts.
I have no more time to continue this.
Courage and Godspeed.