Septuagint versus Masoretic Text: Which is truer to the original Hebrew text and why?

a reply to: Punisher75

And demons exist in the spirit world, and are not Elohim. So that was not true. Read the book of Enoch. The souls of the dead Nephilim and there offspring killed in the flood are the demons. Satan is neither demon nor fallen angel in Judaism, he was created to do what he does and is totally obedient to God.

a reply to: dashen

Where is this 2000 yo translation? Does it include the nt?

a reply to: Sigismundus

And people have gone way more off topic than I did, I hope your not singling me out because I said its mythology and requires abandoning logic to believe. That's the truth. And I was just pointing out facts. The thread is about reliability of the texts, so reliability of the religion itself is fair game.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

Onkelos The translation was made into a aramaic and as far as I can tell only includes the first five books of Moses

a reply to: dashen
Oh. The DSS are older than that.

By the way, on the subject of the Jerusalem Bible, are we talking about the one published for catholics that is based on the 2nd Vatican Council?

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman1966 standard edition it's produced by the church but strays from Catholic dogma and uses Yahweh instead of lord. The Jews made a fuss, and it was to revealing, so they don't make them any more. It's a real gem. They have a new Jerusalem bible, but I have never seen one. I don't need any other bible.

a reply to: DrogoTheNormanit has a Jerusalem cross on the cover. One eqilateral? Cross with 4 smaller crosses. Its huge because of extensive footnotes. I read it cover to cover over the course of last year, and did much research on it every day. Plus here and there study since 20 years ago. I've compared it, and it's hands down the most honest and accurate translation ever produced in English. It's the only bible I know of that doesn't translate the Hebrew names of the Gods except when Hebrew uses Elohim it just says God. Because Elohim is plural and is what would be said in the original Hebrew when English bibles say God. It's strange, but they seem to make an exception to the language buy using a plural word for the one God. Christians jump on it as trinity proof, but the Jews say it's similar to how royal individuals refer to themselves as We, but I'm not familiar with that. So to avoid confusion, they just say God instead of Elohim. It is mysterious for sure though.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

And as far as Ha Satan being an elohim that's debatable. When the Sons of God came before Yahweh it says Ha Satan also came, implying that he is NOT an Elohim.

I am not surprised you are baffled, if you are unable to see the reason why Satan is specifically. Mentioned by name in the story of Job.

Let me give you a clue.

Satan is mentioned by name, not because he is not elohim but because the story of Job is to demonstrate that Job was a player in something much larger than your run of the mill, sting of misfortune.
It was not just him dealing with demons and devils, it was him dealing with demons and devils and the big bad devil himself.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Punisher75

And demons exist in the spirit world, and are not Elohim. So that was not true. Read the book of Enoch. The souls of the dead Nephilim and there offspring killed in the flood are the demons. Satan is neither demon nor fallen angel in Judaism, he was created to do what he does and is totally obedient to God.

I cannot help you at all, if you are unable to parse, the idea that elohim is not a description of powers and attributes, but rather a description of residence.

Knowing that in the Book of Enoch the souls (Darn there is that spirit residence again) of dead nephilim does not make them any less a resident of the spiritual world.

Satan is neither demon nor fallen angel in Judaism, he was created to do what he does and is totally obedient to God.

And is yet still Elohim, why?
Because ones role has nothing to do with being elohim, remember it is a descriptor of residence not a collection of attributes.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
Please, Ive read the non canonical dead sea scrolls, I know more than enough to know every biblical ot book was found exept esther.

Fantastic. Point being? Did you learn that from the link I provided?

My bible used those side by side with the Masoretic and when there was a discrepancy went with the older DSS.

Okay You made a decision. So a question then, what is your point in telling me this?

I have a sense you think you're smarter than you actually are.

Feel free to feel however you like.

The thread is about reliability of the texts, so reliability of the religion itself is fair game.

Actually no its not.
The reason is a simple one. We are not talking about the truth claims of the text talking about what the text says and the reliability of transmission of said text from one generation to the next.

a reply to: Punisher75I never clicked on your link, no point. I've been interested in DSS for years. Why are you so annoying? Because you're a christoid right?

a reply to: Punisher75didn't mean to burst your bubble, but I'm not saying your stupid, just maybe you don't know as much as you think, or even should. I used to think this stuff was true too. But I educated myself and grew up. Religion is theoretical so reliability of truth is nil. Accuracy to the ancient texts goes to the oldest available which is the DSS. The best thing to do is compare them side by side and check for differences, which has been done. So what are you whining about? I'm sorry I didn't need your little link, I do my own research. There is nothing about the DSS I haven't read already, including the non canonical Messianic literature. Same with the NHL.

a reply to: Punisher75Elohim has nothing to do with that. 1. It's a plural word meaning Gods. 2. It's a common Hebrew term for the Most High. It's root word El means God. Im at the end makes it plural. It encompasses the entirety of the hosts of heaven. Wherever they are. Whoever they are. Your understanding of the word is modern. You don't get the ancient world, but should study it.

a reply to: Punisher75demons are not Elohim that is retarded. You don't know what your talking about.

a reply to: Punisher75also Ha Satan is not a name its a title. It means the adversary. I said it was debatable if he was one of the Elohim, and it is.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

also Ha Satan is not a name its a title. It means the adversary. I said it was debatable if he was one of the Elohim, and it is.

Oi Vei, in the words of George Will "You are a pyromaniac in a field of Strawmen."

In truth when you resorted to comments like;

I never clicked on your link, no point. I've been interested in DSS for years. Why are you so annoying? Because you're a christoid right?

You already lost the argument.

Na reply to: Punisher75 Now you're just being an idiot. Why don't you come back when you know what you're talking about. Plus im not arguing, just stating facts. Your pathetic attempts at insulting me are a waste of your time. You have nothing of value to say, and obviously don't know # about Judaism, so I'll leave it at that.

Christard would have been more accurate.