logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Matthew  
#1 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2009 2:14:49 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Here is a section, pages 11-17, from a manual (called the Messianic Nazarene Yisraelite First Response Handbook) by a Messianic guy called Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky, I've deleted a few points which we already all know (like Yahweh's Name removed) and have retained some intersting ones. It's basically a handbook which helps Messianics from drifting back into or turning towards rabbinical Judaism. The manual basically goes on about the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX (Septuagint) being far more superior and accurate than the Masoretic corruption, which most English versions are based upon. In the section are some interesting parts concerning the history of the translators (section highlighted in green) and some interesting text differences, majority of the changes trying to twist Messianic passages, notice the ones I highlighted in red (note: can anyone verify this?)

Quote:
Is the Masoretic Superior?

The anti-missionary is well versed in the LXX and the Masoretic text, and will go out of his or her way to prove that the correct Hebrew Masoretic text is far more reliable than the LXX. Many who fall from Messianic faith simply take the anti-missionary at his or her word, without actually doing some serious homework. You have heard the lies about the alleged problems with the LXX. Now let us take a fresh look at the true facts, as available through 2 or 3 witnesses. If a position cannot be verified with 2 or 3 valid, and reputable witnesses according to Torah, then it CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT be accepted. All the claims in favor of the superiority of the Masoretic text by anti-missionaries, and traditional Judaism have as many holes as a piece of fine Swiss cheese. The burden of Torah proof rests on the accusers. They need 2 or 3 reliable corroborating documents to lay claim to the validity of their held position. But as you are about to encounter, the witnesses are not available to the counter-missionary viewpoint but are to the Messianic position according to the requirements found in Deut. 19:15. Moreover, as you are about to see, the Masorites were not beyond changing Words, and phrases, to eliminate references to Messiah Yahshua. This editing and REDACTING IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF SCRIPTURE IN DEUTERONOMY 12:32 AND PROVERBS 30:6.

The faulty Masoretic text takes the Word for pierced in Psalm 22:16 (a clear crucifixion Psalm) kaaru and changes the last letter from a vav to a yud. The change of letter, changes the meaning from pierced my hands, and feet, to lion, as in as a lion they are at my hands and feet. The LXX has pierced from the original Hebrew karu not kaari. Who’s right? According to the Dead Sea Scrolls dated 100 or so BCE, the Hebrew Word in verse 16 is kaaru pierced and not lion. Not only that but the Aramaic Peshita also agrees with the LXX. No copy before the altered and doctored Masoretic had lion, leaving the Masoretic as the only witness of its claim, not fulfilling basic Torah requirements of proper testimony. The following are some further examples:

Psalm 145:13 is missing entirely in the so-called faultless Masoretic text. The 22 verses are all supposed to be lined up alphabetically according to the Hebrew Aleph-Bet. BUT THE LETTER AND CORRESPONDING VERSE (NUN) is missing. How did that happen? But guess what? Here comes the Septuagint to the rescue. The LXX has verse nun and so does the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 11Q PS (a). Again we have the required 2 witnesses.

In Isaiah 53 the so-called flawless Masoretic is missing a key Word in verse 11. After the word “see”, there should be another word qualifying what the Suffering Servant sees. The Masoretic verse 11 is a slick copy and paste job. But the missing word LIGHT is found in the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore we see the Messiah dying, and the after death, seeing light again by His days being prolonged. By removing the word light after death as in light, or “life after death”, the counter-missionaries have tried unsuccessfully to remove a clear reference to Messiah’s resurrection.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls by Vander Kamp, p.36, Cave 2, it is recorded that the manuscripts contain Psalm 151. Psalm 151 you said? Yes. Does your Masoretic text contain Psalm 151? Even most Christian Old Testament translations are based on the so-called flawless Masoretic text. It is funny but not surprising how the anti-missionaries don’t tell you this!

Exodus 1:5 states that 70 souls came to Egypt from Canaan. But the LXX and Dead Sea Scroll say 75 souls. The Masoretic text is wrong again! Many Masoretic texts have been altered or removed to hide Messianic references that it is no great surprise why parts of the New Testament don’t seem to fit parts of the Old Testament. Let me ask a question. Would you, the reader, rather use Yahshua's version of the Hebrew, which was the basis for the LXX translation, or would you rather use the antimissionaries “spin zone edition”, which is a decent work but did not come from Sinai, my friend. Acts 7:14 confirms Exodus 1:5 in the LXX. If you believe the New Testament to be inspired by YHWH, then you will have to believe that He led them to use and quote the LXX rather than the existing Jerusalem Hebrew version of the Tanach in the 1st century, knowing that the LXX was more reliable at that time.

In Genesis 10:24 the so-called perfect Masoretic text is missing generations. The New Testament in Luke 3:36 inserts Cainan as does the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls, leaving 3 biblical witnesses against one. What happened to the perfect genealogies that the Masoretic Old Testament claimed to preserve all the while ripping apart Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogy?

The Masoretic text serves as its own witness. It has no proven connection at all to any 1st century Sanhedrin accrediting. It is a compilation of the rabbis of the Middle Ages who were not accountable to any body of theological authority. Seventy outstanding Hebrew scholars on the other hand, translated the LXX, WITH THE FULL APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION of the High Priest, BEFORE YAHSHUA WAS EVEN BORN. THE LXX WAS FINISHED EVEN BEFORE THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN ERA BEGAN! These 70 Jewish rabbis had no axe to grind, and no agenda either pro or con, as pertaining to Yahshua as Messiah. They translated as 70 Jewish rabbis, with direct recommendation from Israel’s High Priest, and Israel’s Sanhedrin. The High Priest therefore knew and approved the Hebrew original from which the LXX was derived. Then of course, Yahshua Himself approved of the LXX. Finally the Hebrew from which the LXX was derived is approximately 900 years older than the first “official” Masoretic edition, leaving less time for unintentional scribal error.

Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the Masoretic, and clearly do not fit the literal context as the subject matter changes for these two verses. In the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls these verses are not found and Jeremiah 10, and in those editions makes perfect sense.

A verse in Ezra referring to the “Passover as Our Savior” is missing in the Masoretic, and later LXX manuscripts. It was originally there as verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

According to several “church” historians like Origen and others, Psalm 96:10 in the Jerusalem Hebrew manuscripts around in the 1st century CE read as follows: “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood,” a clear reference to the crucifixion, and power of Messiah’s vicarious death on our behalf. Today in the supposed traditional handed down Masoretic, these Words are missing, as they are in most Christian bibles, since most Christian bibles sadly use the Old Testament Masoretic as a base source.


The Masoritic scribes in a subtle and veiled attempt to keep divine worship, and Jewish law making in the hands of a select few rabbis, made a subtle but key change to a text from Isaiah. Sworn to oppose anything non-Hebraic, or approved by Jerusalem, the Masorites changed the text of Isaiah 19:18 so as to make it appear that YHWH would never allow or approve any Old Testament text outside of Hebrew. This clever manipulation can be seen in looking at the original verse in Isaiah 19:18: “On that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt, speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing by YHWH of Hosts and one shall be called the city of righteousness” However in the Masoretic text the phrase "city of righteousness" was changed to the “city of the sun” or in some versions “the city of destruction.”

What would be the motive? Well we know that righteous Jews from the land of Canaan, whose
forefathers originally spoke the native tongue of Hebrew, undertook the idea of the LXX by seeking translators to do the work. From these Jewish communities of Egypt, came forth the righteous desire to translate the Hebrew Tanach into Greek for the righteous Jews in the righteous Jewish community of Alexandria Egypt. In order to remove what many felt to be a clear reference to the commissioning and legitimacy of the LXX, this alteration was done. Moreover the 7th century Masorites, desired to remove the very notion that righteous Jews living outside of Jerusalem were willing to study Torah, outside of the direct authority of the men of the Great Assembly/Sanhedrin. Therefore today we have the phrase “city of the sun” rather than "city of righteousness", which may well be a clear reference to Jewish exiles in the city of Alexandria Egypt around the time of the 3rd century BCE.

The irony of this situation is that not only did the rabbis change the scripture but they also ignored their own history. History is clear that the men of The Great Assembly, along with the High Priest of Israel, all gave their approval to the project that became the LXX. In hiding this verse from its true context, they have been found guilty of changing both the Word of YHWH, along with recorded history. The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book Of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically. This was done so that a clear time sequence could not be ascertained from Daniel that would prove that Yahshua was the Messiah.

If we were to rearrange the chapters in chronological order, the entire book would be far more comprehendible like the Book of Revelation. This deed is a willful manipulation of chronology, in order to hide the clear fact that Messiah had to come at a specific point in time, and did just as He was prophesied to do.


In Isaiah 61:1 the Masoretic does not contain the phrase “recovery of sight to the blind.” Yet Luke 4:18 does as does the LXX. Obviously Yahshua is being quoted in Luke 4:18 as He quotes from Isaiah. Now either Yahshua couldn’t read properly or He read from the Hebrew on which the LXX was based. I don’t know about you but for me it is easier to trust Yahshua than those who have hidden the Father’s Name 137 times in the so-called infallible Masoretic text. The more we examine the deception of the counter-missionaries, the more it becomes clear that the Masoretic text is really a traditional Jewish project written or updated in the Middle Ages, and used to evangelize people away from the true Messiah and the Father’s true Name.

In Psalm 40:6 the Masoretic text (Psalm 40:7 in the Stone Edition) has purposely changed the phrase “a BODY” you have prepared for me”, as properly quoted again in Hebrews 10:5, and verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls. This verse speaks of a man who has a special body prepared for Him by YHWH, to come to earth because the scrolls of Torah testify of Him! Now if you were a Masoretic counter-missionary evangelist, you’d want this verse tampered with also. That is exactly what they did. They changed Psalm 40:6 to “you opened my ears.” What does open ears have to do with a person coming in a prepared body?

In the Torah in Deuteronomy 32:43, there is another verse missing from the Torah, BUT
PERFECTLY QUOTED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT from the LXX. Why do you think it is missing? Lets take a look and see. It says in Hebrews 1:6 “And when He again brings the Firstborn into the world, He says ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim WORSHIP HIM.’” Hmmm. The deceptive pattern here is interesting! Deuteronomy 32:43, is found in the Aramaic Peshitta as Psalms 97:7, and in the New Testament, as a verse that speaks of worshipping the Firstborn Son of YHWH! Sounds like the “Masoretic evangelists” have been doing some serious editing. Is it any shock that having rejected the living Word Yahshua, the counter-missionaries also rejected the revealed written Word in sections they did not care for? As Yahshua Himself scolded them when He said, “FOR IF you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, since He wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe my Words?”


In the Masoretic text the term in Genesis 4:8 is missing this phrase “Let us go into the field”, uttered by Cain to Abel. This phrase is maintained in the LXX.

The Masoretic text does not have the full version of Moses Song in Deuteronomy 32:43. The LXX and Dead Sea Scroll have it.

In the Masoretic version of Isaiah 53 there are 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences between the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1Qlsb.

The Masoretic text uses almah in Isaiah 7:14 which means virgin, but then denies the virgin birth in spite of this word almah, claiming that betulah ought to have been used as if they have right to instruct YHWH. But the LXX translates this as parthenos, which mean untouched virgin woman. The Aramaic Peshitta confirms the LXX with betulah another synonymous clear Aramaic/Hebrew word for virgin. As opposed to the Masoretic, the LXX is crystal clear with no ambiguity among the 70 rabbis who did the work in Alexandria.

Another point of note is that Psalms is by far the most quoted Old Testament book quoted in the New Testament. “Strangely” enough, the Masoretic version of Psalms is the most doctored book. In Psalm 110:5 where it originally said YHWH at THY RIGHT HAND, and changed it to “Adonai at your right hand” to eliminate the “Lesser YHWH” and to eliminate any connection to Yahshua who claimed to be YHWH come in the flesh.

The Masoretic text added vowel pointing in the late 700s to “help” pronounce Hebrew Words the way they thought it should be pronounced. Apparently they know a tad more than YHWH, who didn’t feel the need to give any vowel pointing under the original Words and consonants. By adding vowels, they could turn any word upside down, without changing the written consonants by getting the reader to pronounce the word the way they felt it originally was pronounced. Every time a Hebrew word is pronounced when reading the Masoretic text, we are merely repeating the opinion of the Masorites, as to the pronunciation of a word. Therefore the very comprehension of Words derived from the Masoretic text is therefore suspect. We also know, by their own admission, that the vowel points were added to the Tetragrammaton YHWH, not to assist, but rather to hinder the correct pronunciation.

When Masoretic vowel points are used YHWH comes out as Jah Ho VA!! Hmmm. Where have we
heard that before? As to the origin of Masoretic vowel pointing, general scholarship is most certain that it was borrowed by the Masoretic anti-missionaries, from Syriac, and MOSLEM influences of the Middle Ages. The actual vowel pointing and subsequent word vocalization of modern Hebrew comes in large part from the borrowed method of preserving correct Arabic pronunciation! Don’t you see the irony in Jews trusting in a Moslem method of vocalization?

Due to this borrowing of the vowel pointing, many Words today we pronounce one way don’t
resemble the paleo/ancient vocalization of years gone by. Thus we have no sure way of knowing that we are pronouncing any of the Hebrew Words correctly. It is possible that much of the vocalization based on Masoretic vowel pointing has no resemblance whatsoever to original usage. Are these the kind of folks you can really trust to handle YHWH’s Word, and tell you if Messiah has come? Or do we trust in YHWH, and His Word, as preserved in the original manuscripts BUT not available today?

WE must trust IN YHWH ALONE and HIS Son alone.

The anti-missionaries attribute the origins of the current Masoretic text to Ezra the scribe in circa 500 BCE, along with the latter men of the Great Assembly i.e., the Sanhedrin under the supposed inspiration of the Set-Apart Spirit and thus supposedly free from any and all error. Not only has this assertion proven untrue, but it has been proven that the Masoretic text complied in the middle ages around 800 CE, was based most probably on the work of Rabbi Akiva, he of the false prophet variety. Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba as Messiah in 130 CE, and as an early leading anti-missionary, caused thousands of Jews to die needlessly at the hands of Rome by fighting, after Yahshua had told them to run and escape, and not fight. It was his school that gathered together a Hebrew text upon which PERHAPS, the later Masoretic text is based, in order to COUNTERACT THE GROWING MESSIANIC NAZARENE SECT, and their use of the LXX. BUT Rabbi Akiva lived 500-600 years after Ezra. The antimissionary claim that Ezra is probably the actual editor of the current Masoretic text is blatantly false.

The anti-missionaries claim that since the New Testament is based on the Greek LXX, with over 5,000 differing manuscripts, that the Masoretic is more reliable. What they have not told you is that the Masoretic itself is a compilation from some 3,400 rolls and codices according to De Rossi, with variances from scroll to scroll. According to De Rossi and others, the famed Rabbi Akiva, who proclaimed Bar Kochba as the false Messiah in 135 CE, did the original Masoretic compilation, and certainly not Ezra.


By the way, this Rabbi Koniuchowsky (www.yourarmstoisrael.com) has recently written a book called Sex and the Believer which I think might be a major hindrance to his ministry, I think he's blown it now and could've well discredited himself.

Also, can anyone verify if The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, copyright 1999 by Martin Albegg, Jr, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. (Harper Collins) and The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts Edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. have taken these changes into account? I'm considering to buy a new Bible (because my wife binned my ISR - The Scriptures - copy, lol), I thought about The Restoration Scriptures by this Rabbi Koniuchowsky, but I know he's heavily influenced by Two-House theory and it's quite expensive, though he does do a compact version but still hangs around the US$60 mark.
Offline Theophilus  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:24:56 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 527
Man

Thanks: 3 times
Matthew, I sympathize with your quest for a satisfying Scripture translation. I considered Koniuchowsky's but opted to not to for now. I did get the DSSB which I knew the limits of going in but I was pleased to use the source text notes as Yada suggested to note where the texts differ. Unfortunately I can't read Greek so I cannot make much use of the compilation of the earliest Greek texts you referred to. I'll await Swalchy's amplified Renewed Covenant before I have a satisfying RC.

You might be amused by an experience I had a few months ago being invited to sit in on a study of Isaiah. For my text I brought the DSSB and a word doc of those passages amplified in YY. We each took turns reading passages and after my turn I was asked what translation I was using as the KJV was thought by one participant to be the earliest and thus most authorized version possible. It was a definite learning opportunity.
Offline shalom82  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:48:00 PM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Shalom Everyone,
It's been a while since I have posted and I just want to reiterate that thought I am not posting much these days I am lurking in the backround and reading all the great points and good work you guys are doing. I hope to get a little more involved as the weeks go by, but right now I have another priority. My daughter Yona Keshet was born on the Sabbath of 17 Abib. She is a beautiful little girl and my wife and I are just overwhelmed with joy and at the blessing which Father YHWH has given us. She is healthy and has a voice made for singing psalms :) I am very blessed and I am so happy. Pray for me and my wife as we endeavor to honor YHWH and teach our daughter his ways and introduce her to YHWH who exists as Messiah Yahushua. Pray for us that the Qodesh Ruach will guide us on the right path and keep us from straying off that path. With all that in mind we still managed to have a wonderful Pesach...replete with Roast lamb and all. YHWH has blessed us.

Anyway, as it pertains to what Matthew has written:

A verse in Ezra referring to the “Passover as Our Savior” is missing in the Masoretic, and later LXX manuscripts. It was originally there as verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I am very curious about this myself. I would like to think it was there, but since Koniuchowsky has a habit of making grandiose statements, proclamations, and allusions withous offering proof or making a strong case much of the time....then I have to say I am skeptical. I did some research and found that the missing verse in question was attributed to Justin Martyr....but that's where the trail went cold. If somebody could offer up some evidence...that would be great and it would be a thing to celebrate, but if it is not there then it is just another harm that Koniuchowsky has done to the Messianic community. I too like Matthew have looked into his sex/believer book and it seems like the polygamy bug has bitten Koniuchowsky...this is a major problem in the "2 house" movement. That's all I will say. It's a shame because as far as it goes I think that 2 housers have...a few things to say...and some of what they say is true...but I don't think on the scale or importance that they suggest. If what they say is true about Israel being scattered in the nations...which I am sure it is....Judah is scattered in the nations and I am an example of that....then I think it is something that should not be forced. YHWH will do things and fulfill prophecies in his own way and the Israelite fixation is I believe a distraction. I digress....as usual.

Yibarakhem YHWH


Shalom
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline In His Name  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:13:27 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
shalom82 wrote:
Shalom Everyone,
It's been a while since I have posted and I just want to reiterate that thought I am not posting much these days I am lurking in the backround and reading all the great points and good work you guys are doing. I hope to get a little more involved as the weeks go by, but right now I have another priority. My daughter Yona Keshet was born on the Sabbath of 17 Abib. She is a beautiful little girl and my wife and I are just overwhelmed with joy and at the blessing which Father YHWH has given us. She is healthy and has a voice made for singing psalms :) I am very blessed and I am so happy. Pray for me and my wife as we endeavor to honor YHWH and teach our daughter his ways and introduce her to YHWH who exists as Messiah Yahushua. Pray for us that the Qodesh Ruach will guide us on the right path and keep us from straying off that path. With all that in mind we still managed to have a wonderful Pesach...replete with Roast lamb and all. YHWH has blessed us.

Shalom


I can't help you with your question;but a BIG CONGRATULATIONS on the birth of your daughter. May our Father's blessings guide and protect your family.

Shalom!
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline James  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:45:17 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Congratulations Shalom

Theophiles wrote:
the KJV was thought by one participant to be the earliest and thus most authorized version possible. It was a definite learning opportunity.


The acceptance of KJV never ceases to amaze me. why someone would believe a text that is 1400 years removed from the source is the oldest and most reliable source, and then believe what it says with out question.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Theophilus  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:26:44 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 527
Man

Thanks: 3 times
Shalom82, I want to echo IHN's big CONGRATULATIONS on the birth of your daughter. That is fantastic news. I do enjoy reading your posts and will miss you regular participation, but it is good to know that you are out there and have much joy to celebrate and keep you preoccupied.
Offline Matthew  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:37:27 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Congrats Shalom, may Yahweh grant your requests, I'm pretty sure He's chuffed with your requests, wanting to live and have Him included in your family.

Just the other day, like yesterday or the day before, I was thinking what happened to you as your posts haven't been as many as before, good to see you've just been kept busy. I also wondered about Shohn, he was also steadily active and then went quiet (edit: though I do see him active on his website glassgloves.com, a great work)

Concerning the Ezra passage I can't find anything.
Offline lassie1865  
#8 Posted : Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:46:29 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Greetings Dear Friends,

Can you direct me to a photo (or other confirmation) of a manuscript containing the placeholder for "God" in "John" 1, " . . . and the Word was God." My JW friend is stuck on the interpretation " . . . a god." I would like to show her that it not written a "theos", but rather a placeholder is used (I assume this is the case). Which placeholder is used: "God", "Supreme One", or "Yahuweh"?

Thanks so much!

Lassie1865
Offline lassie1865  
#9 Posted : Friday, May 15, 2009 10:39:30 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Swalchy,

So, is a placeholder used? Which one? It does not say "theos", right?

Lassie1865
Offline lassie1865  
#10 Posted : Friday, May 15, 2009 6:09:05 PM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Thank you! So, is "God" always the translation of (ON) and (OE)? Is "God" the best translation?

Lassie1865
Offline lassie1865  
#11 Posted : Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:36:39 PM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Thanks, again. Is there a "key" somewhere in the Greek manuscript that equates specific placeholders with specific Hebrew terms/names?
Lassie1865
Offline lassie1865  
#12 Posted : Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:35:46 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Thank you, again. In John1:1, why is the word "the" used as "tov" for "the God" and as "o" for "the Word"? Is the "tov" for "plurality, or fullness"?

Lassie1865
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.