Answering Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Augustine3

Guest
I’ve heard Muslims attack the Old Testament claiming the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic text proves the scriptures were fabricated.

How do we respond?

Brother in Christ,
 
Augustine3 said:
I’ve heard Muslims attack the Old Testament claiming the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic text proves the scriptures were fabricated.

How do we respond?

Brother in Christ,
Click to expand...
Specifics please ~ what was “fabricated”… ?
 
Augustine3 said:
I’ve heard Muslims attack the Old Testament claiming the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic text proves the scriptures were fabricated.

How do we respond?

Brother in Christ,
Click to expand...
I am greatly relieved to learn that they have moved on to attacking something inanimate like scripture. Good news for world peace I would say.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Sufjon said:
Congratulate them on having learned to attack something inanimate for once. Maybe if they stick to just attacking scripture from now on, the rest of us can travel in peace without being strip searched.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: But ouch!!!
 
Here’s what the Muslim threw at me:

Psalm 40:6 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me…

Psalm 40:6 (quoted from KJV Old Testament)
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened…

Comment: Psalm 40:6 is regarded by Christians as a prophecy of the Incarnation of Christ, and Hebrews 10:5 quotes it as such, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing “but a body hast thou prepared for me” with “mine ears hast thou opened.” Note that the KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Hebrews 1:6 cf. Deuteronomy 32:43

Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV New Testament)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Deuteronomy 32:43 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him…

Deuteronomy 32:43 (KJV Old Testament)
Phrase omitted.

Comment: The Masoretic Text completely omits the phrase “and let all the angels of God worship him” from Deuteronomy 32.43.

Matthew 12:21 cf. Isaiah 42:4

Isaiah 42:4 is regarded by Christians as a prophecy of Gentile acceptance of, and faith in, the name of the Messiah, and Matthew 12:21 quotes it as such, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing the phrase “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust” with “and the isles shall wait for his law.” Note that the KJV New Testament and the Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Masoretic Text:

Isaiah 42:4 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:4 (KJV Old Testament)
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

These contradictions prove two things:
  1. It proves that the ancient texts have been altered to suit the agenda of the alterers,
  2. It puts the lie to the claim that the King James Version is a perfect, “divinely-inspired translation”. Obviously, if the New and Old Testaments of the King James Version contradict each other then the King James Version cannot be an inerrant document."
forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=…amp;postcount=4

I find the first two particularly worrisome.

The first one makes you wonder whether there was an effort by the Christians to change the text to make it look it was a prophecy about crucifixion , or was the passage changed by the Jews to make it seem like it wasn’t about cruxifiction at all.

The second is extremely worrisome. Why? Because it is quoted in the book of Hebrews and it has remarkable theological significance! The Jews don’t have that line “and let all the angels of God worship him” in their Torah. Makes me wonder did the Jews change the text or did the Christians. This has great theological bearing. It is one of the OT passages that is quoted in the NT to justify the worship of Jesus (pbuh)! Don’t try to downplay it.

Another famous passages is the controversy over Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel.”

The word in the Masoretic text is “young girl” while in the Septuagint it is “virgin”.

Christians constantly say that Jesus (pbuh) (the divine and atoning saviour) is prophecisied in the Old Testament. This obviously creates a dilemma. Who to believe? The Christians who preserved a translation! The Jews who preserved it in the original language but had equal motive to change the text as well and had done this in certain instances! Look up my post on tikkun soferim to know what those instances are in that other thread you posted. These changes are also found in the Septuagint, showing that they were most likely done by the men of the Great Assembly.
 
First if translations are wrong then what make original texts corrupted?

Secondly according to Rashi’s commentary this message is prophetic! and not referring to Isaiah the prophet! Lets next look at a few definitions:

Definitions obtained from: Langenscheidt Hebrew Dictionary Langenscheidt Publishers, Inc. 46-35 54th Road, Maspheth, N.Y. 11378

Almah - (alma) f, pl. alamot, - “maiden, young marriageable woman;”

Harah - (hara) f, horah, harah, pl. horot, harot - “to conceive, to be pregnant”

Now from interpretation this verse can be read as is and still understand that it is referring to a virgin birth (virgin i mean as that had never known a man). First, it is a disgrace for a Jewish man to marry a woman who had played the harlot and gotten pregnant etc. Leviticus 21:14 “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.” It is commanded to not marry such women, but to marry the virgin women. Now the question arises whether Isaiah should have used the world tula for instead of almah meaning young marriageable woman? The point I am trying to make is that according to the law for a woman to be marriageable she must have her virginity. So in effect, Isaiah was saying that this woman would not only be marriageable but also a virgin according to the law! This can be seen also in the book of Matthew when Joseph had found her (Mary) to be pregnant already, and rather than make it public he was going to put her away privately. Matthew 1:18-19, Joseph saw that she was pregnant and so wouldn’t dishonor himself by taking her to be his wife. But, then an angel from the Lord came and told him this child is of the Holy spirit Matthew 1:20, so he did as the Lord had commanded him to do. Joseph took Mary to be his wife. Take an honest look at the scriptures and you will see Isaiah 7:14 to mean this same thing."

And finally and the most important part do you know who translated Hebrew texts to Greek and made it Septugaint? 70 Jewish scholars!!! If 70 Jewish scholar can make such a mistake then sorry I have lost my faith!

Todays Judaism is the Rabbinical Judaism which created 200 years after Christ. You can understand that from Talmud. I hope that helped you my friend God bless!
 
Sufjon said:
I am greatly relieved to learn that they have moved on to attacking something inanimate like scripture. Good news for world peace I would say.

Your friend
Sufjon
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

And the zinger of the month goes to, Sufjon!
 
Augustine3 said:
Psalm 40:6 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me…

Psalm 40:6 (quoted from KJV Old Testament)
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened…
Click to expand...
*“What this question fails to consider is that the NT authors often quoted a couple of OT text types that are at variance with the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. In fact, the NT authors at times quote a more ancient form of the text than the later Masoretic version as can be seen from a comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. These two texts often agree with each other in certain readings over against those found in the later Hebrew version. *One must therefore exercise caution before assuming that the NT is corrupting or quoting from an inaccurate version of the Hebrew text solely because their citations differ from those found in the Masoretic version.
In this case, it seems that the author of Hebrews cited an older form of the text, one found in the Septuagint version of the OT Scriptures: *Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and *sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
Thus, the Septuagint serves as a witness to an older reading of the Psalms which contained the word body as opposed to that found in certain Hebrew versions.
Yet the fact of the matter is that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential, of no real significance, and can be easily reconciled. None of these variants affect any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
These references actually help illustrate this point clearly. A careful reading of these two specific variants help clarify one another, and in no way contradict the point being made by the inspired author of Hebrews.
*For instance, the Hebrew word for ***open in Psalm 40:6 comes from karah, a word that has the following meanings:
Strong’s # 03738
1) * to dig, excavate, dig through
a) (Qal) to dig
b) * (Niphal) to be dug 2) (Qal) to give a banquet or feast
3) (Qal) to get by trade, trade, buy”
Source.
 
Furthermore, I’ve come across this explanation:

“By the end of the first Century the unbelieving Jews were outright rejecting the Septuagint because the early Christians were having such great success using it to Prove that Jesus the Promised Messiah. Their discontent grew so intense that they Commissioned their own Translation of the OT Scriptures called the Masoretic Text.” Link.
http://www.standingthegap.org/Septugint vs Masortic.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top