Martin Luther "edited" The Word of God...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Council of Jamnia, 90 AD
From reading FF Bruce, Roger Beckwith, and Lee MacDonald on this subject it appears that Jamnia never discussed the deutero’s at all. If you have information indicating that Jamnia did in fact discuss the deutero’s, please post it.
 
Excuse me, but this is such nonsense. If they were going to remove some books that contained prophecy pointing to Jesus as Messiah,

Why wouldn’t they take out all of them?
Actually, it’s a smart move on their behalf.

They removed the books that proved that Jesus was The Messiah, but not the ones that said could still be used to profess that a Messiah was yet to come.

Come on Ginger, they were arrogant and stupid enough to reject Jesus, don’t you think they were capable of deceiving their own people? Jesus Himself called them snakes and a brood of vipers, hypocrites.

Instead of putting it past them, think who we’re talking about. The Pharisees. The rejectors of Christ. Why did they use them for 300 years and all of a sudden, at the explosion of Christianity and at their needing to close the canon of The Old Testament all of a sudden “not” need these books anymore?

Jesus learned and taught and quoted from those very books that they rejected (just like they rejected Him).
 
I never knew that they used the correct translation. My Priest always did tell me that the New Testaments in both books were identical.
I think you will find that there is a lot of mis-information floating around on both sides.
 
Isn’t interesting then that Jerome translated the Vulgate, which was confirmed by Trent, from the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint? And of course there is the matter that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the entire Septuagint. The Orthodox are consistent by accepting the whole thing. The Orthodox-Catholic split took place in 1054, after the canon was supposedly set. Why do the canons of the two churches differ.

Protestants use the Jewish canon, the Orthodox use the Septuagint canon. The Catholic Church uses neither.
A. We created The Holy Bible that everybody “after” use used as the basis for theirs.

B. We could put whatever we want to put in them because, Hello? we authored them.

C. It was God’s decision “what” books would be in there. He told us and we followed His word.

Not one religious group after Catholicism has ever stated that The Holy Spirit guided them into creating their own canons. They used human reasoning and academics and religious politics to decide what books they wanted to include in their own versions of a bible.

The fact is, no bible existed before we canonized it. That is an undisputable fact
(this might be unfair to state since no other Christian sect existed at the time either, but oh well…it’s history.)
 
I must say that even though I am as “hardcore” a Catholic as they come, the cow is out of the barn on this one. Even if you can show that ML did this (and he did), it is not going to matter.

First, many protestants do not know who Luther is other than the one who showed the Roman Church the error of their ways. They do not consider him their “Spiritual father” or the founder of their faith.

Second, you are fighting against too many years of ingrained misunderstandings on both sides. They will not move by your will or proof. All you can do is hope Go pushes as well.
But they adhere to “his” doctrine.

That’s more important than anything.

Jesus never taught Sola Scriptura.

He always taught that we were to listen to our religious leaders, that we were to “listen” to The Word of God, not “only” read it. The Bible itself tells us that God has placed people in positions of authority over us and that we are to obey them for nothing happens without his allowing it to happen.

To prove that Sola Scriptura is false, unshackles those who live by it from their chains of misindoctrination.

And you’re right…there’s alot of things they dont’ know about why they believe “what” they believe.

But I hope that their learning just as I’m learning.

🙂
 
No problem. One of the threads disappeared completely last night. I think it was the one “P’s vs C’s” or something.

The bold part is what I am questioning. As far as I know the septuagint’s that we posses copies of or have knowledge of are all Christian copies that date back to around the 4th or 5th centures. If this is correct, we don’t appear to know for certain what books were contained in the Jewish septuagint before this time.

I appreciate your post but I am still looking for whether or not we know what is contained in the early Jewish versions of the septuagint. The three codices we have; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and I don’t remember the third one and may not have spelled the other two correctly…anyway, the three codices we have of the septuagint are all Christian copies from several centuries after Jesus and the apostles.

I don’t know of anyone such as a Josephus or Philo that lists which books made up the Jewish septuagint.

It seems that the Jewish septuagint is somewhat of a mystery at this point.
The most accurate way to know what Christianity used as it’s basis is to look at The Bible itself.

The quotes that were used in it which referenced the OT only existed in The Septugaint.

And…The Pharisees canon didn’t exist until most of the Apostles were already dead.

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
 
From reading FF Bruce, Roger Beckwith, and Lee MacDonald on this subject it appears that Jamnia never discussed the deutero’s at all. If you have information indicating that Jamnia did in fact discuss the deutero’s, please post it.
Of course they didn’t discuss it. They were out of the question for them after what happened on Calvary.

As for proof…check out their canon. It’s missing the books found in The Septugaint that existed 300 years before theirs and that was used by Jews up until Jamnia.
 
There are also several different versions of the Septuagint. Which one is correct? Compare for example the first Chapter of Tobit from the Douay-Rheims and the NAB. They are quite different.
Tobit 1:1-25 DRB
(1) Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet,)
(2) When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth,
(3) But every day gave all he could get to his brethren his fellow captives, that were of his kindred.
(4) And when he was younger than any of the tribe of Nephtali, yet did he no childish thing in his work.
(5) Moreover when all went to the golden calves which Jeroboam king of Israel had made, he alone fled the company of all,
(6) And went to Jerusalem to the temple of the Lord, and there adored the Lord God of Israel, offering faithfully all his firstfruits, and his tithes,
(7) So that in the third year he gave all his tithes to the proselytes, and strangers.
(8) These and such like things did he observe when but a boy according to the law of God.
(9) But when he was a man, he took to wife Anna of his own tribe, and had a son by her, whom he called after his own name,
(10) And from his infancy he taught him to fear God, and to abstain from all sin.
(11) And when by the captivity he with his wife and his son and all his tribe was come to the city of Ninive,
(12) (When all ate of the meats of the Gentiles) he kept his soul and never was defiled with their meats.
(13) And because he was mindful of the Lord with all his heart, God gave him favour in the sight of Salmanasar the king.
(14) And he gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had a mind.
(15) He therefore went to all that were in captivity, and gave them wholesome admonitions.
(16) And when he was come to Rages a city of the Medes, and had ten talents of silver of that with which he had been honoured by the king:
(17) And when amongst a great multitude of his kindred, he saw Gabelus in want, who was one of his tribe, taking a note of his hand he gave him the aforesaid sum of money.
(18) But after a long time, Salmanasar the king being dead, when Sennacherib his son, who reigned in his place, had a hatred for the children of Israel:
(19) Tobias daily went among all his kindred and comforted them, and distributed to every one as he was able, out of his goods:
(20) He fed the hungry, and gave clothes to the naked, and was careful to bury the dead, and they that were slain.
(21) And when king Sennacherib was come back, fleeing from Judea by reason of the slaughter that God had made about him for his blasphemy, and being angry slew many of the children of Israel, Tobias buried their bodies.
(22) But when it was told the king, he commanded him to be slain, and took away all his substance.
(23) But Tobias fleeing naked away with his son and with his wife, lay concealed, for many loved him.
(24) But after forty-five days, the king was killed by his own sons.
(25) And Tobias returned to his house, and all his substance was restored to him.
 
Tobit 1:1-22 NAB-A
(1) This book tells the story of Tobit, son of Tobiel, son of Hananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael of the family of Asiel, of the tribe of Naphtali,
(2) who during the reign of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, was taken captive from Thisbe, which is south of Kedesh Naphtali in upper Galilee, above and to the west of Asser, north of Phogor.
(3) I, Tobit, have walked all the days of my life on the paths of truth and righteousness. I performed many charitable works for my kinsmen and my people who had been deported with me to Nineveh, in Assyria.
(4) When I lived as a young man in my own country, Israel, the entire tribe of my forefather Naphtali had broken away from the house of David and from Jerusalem. This city had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes, so that they all might offer sacrifice in the place where the temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come.
(5) All my kinsmen, like the rest of the tribe of my forefather Naphtali, used to offer sacrifice on all the mountains of Galilee as well as to the young bull which Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan.
(6) I, for my part, would often make the pilgrimage alone to Jerusalem for the festivals, as is prescribed for all Israel by perpetual decree. Bringing with me the first fruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, together with a tenth of my income and the first shearings of the sheep, I would hasten to Jerusalem
(7) and present them to the priests, Aaron’s sons, at the altar. To the Levites who were doing service in Jeusalem I would give the tithe of grain, wine, olive oil, pomegranates, figs, and other fruits. And except for sabbatical years, I used to give a second tithe in money, which each year I would go and disburse in Jerusalem.
(8) The third tithe I gave to orphans and widows, and to converts who were living with the Israelites. Every third year I would bring them this offering, and we ate it in keeping with the decree of the Mosaic law and the commands of Deborah, the mother of my father Tobiel; for when my father died, he left me an orphan.
(9) When I reached manhood, I married Anna, a woman of our own lineage. By her I had a son whom I named Tobiah.
(10) Now, after I had been deported to Nineveh, all my brothers and relatives ate the food of heathens,
(11) but I refrained from eating that kind of food.
(12) Because of this wholehearted service of God,
(13) the Most High granted me favor and status with Shalmaneser, so that I became purchasing agent for all his needs.
(14) Every now and then until his death I would go to Media to buy goods for him. I also deposited several pouches containing a great sum of money with my kinsman Gabael, son of Gabri, who lived at Rages, in Media.
(15) But when Shalmaneser died and his son Sennacherib succeeded him as king, the roads to Media became unsafe, so I could no longer go there.
(16) During Shalmaneser’s reign I performed many charitable works for my kinsmen and my people.
(17) I would give my bread to the hungry and my clothing to the naked. If I saw one of my people who had died and been thrown outside the walls of Nineveh, I would bury him.
(18) I also buried anyone whom Sennacherib slew when he returned as a fugitive from Judea during the days of judgment decreed against him by the heavenly King because of the blasphemies he had uttered. In his rage he killed many Israelites, but I used to take their bodies by stealth and bury them; so when Sennacherib looked for them, he could not find them.
(19) But a certain citizen of Nineveh informed the king that it was I who buried the dead. When I found out that the king knew all about me and wanted to put me to death, I went into hiding; then in my fear I took to flight.
(20) Afterward, all my property was confiscated; I was left with nothing. All that I had was taken to the king’s palace, except for my wife Anna and my son Tobiah.
(21) But less than forty days later the king was assassinated by two of his sons, who then escaped into the mountains of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon, who succeeded him as king, placed Ahiqar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the accounts of his kingdom, so that he took control over the entire administration.
(22) Then Ahiqar interceded on my behalf, and I was able to return to Nineveh. For under Sennacherib, king of Assyria, Ahiqar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the seal, administrator, and treasurer; and Esarhaddon reappointed him. He was a close relative-in fact, my nephew.
 
But what is the word(s)?

What was the original verse and how did he change it?

As for Martin Luther…his doctrined is called “Sola Fide”.
Maybe Googling that term might help you find some history on it.

🙂
Gen 3:15 “he shall crush” was changed to “she shall crush”

That’s the difference with the Septuagint. The words of gender allow either reading. You have no cause to say jerome “changed” anything.
 
There are also several different versions of the Septuagint. Which one is correct? Compare for example the first Chapter of Tobit from the Douay-Rheims and the NAB. They are quite different.
Which ever one The Church says is correct.
 
Gen 3:15 “he shall crush” was changed to “she shall crush”
That’s the difference with the Septuagint. The words of gender allow either reading. You have no cause to say jerome “changed” anything."
A smarter man than I!

Thank you for that enlightment.

Something else I learned today!

👍
 
i see some one knows how to cut and paste.

have you bothered to read from any knowledgeable source as to why he added the word? german, greek, and english are all very different languages and to translate from one language to another is difficult to say the least.

but again, there are already many threads that have already addressed this issue. do a search and you can read the answers.

unless you just want a fight.
The O’Hare book I have read. it is called “The Facts about Luther” and is a bit of a polemical work from 1916. Republished by TAN books.

The O’Hare is Msgr. Patrick F O’Hare LL.D
 
Originally Posted by bengal_fan
i see some one knows how to cut and paste.
have you bothered to read from any knowledgeable source as to why he added the word? german, greek, and english are all very different languages and to translate from one language to another is difficult to say the least.
]
Doesn’t that violate “Sola Scriptura”?

Using sources outside of The Holy Bible to prove doctrine?

:confused:
 
Doesn’t that violate “Sola Scriptura”?

Using sources outside of The Holy Bible to prove doctrine?

:confused:
no it doesn’t.

also, i am not a sola scripturist, i am a prima scripturist.

sola scriptura simply means that it is the sole rule of faith. not that it is the sole inspiration for faith.

prima says that it holds the primacy when it comes to rules of faith (doctrine). other sources (namely the church when acting as one / and/or Christians acting within community, as well as tradition handed down to us) can be used in determining doctrine but they are subject to scripture. anything that goes against scripture cannot be true. anything not specifically derived from scripture is not binding doctrine.

but, again, no. using other sources to learn doctrine does not go against sola scriptura.
 
Gen 3:15 “he shall crush” was changed to “she shall crush”

That’s the difference with the Septuagint. The words of gender allow either reading. You have no cause to say jerome “changed” anything.
sure he does. the traditional translation of the hebrew was “He”. the septuagint stayed true to that. the problem is that going from the original to a translation, to another translation can mess you up. if jerome knew the original language (hebrew), then he would have known the traditional translation was “He” and by making it “She”, he changed the tradition. if he didn’t know the original language, then it was just his mistake.
 
sure he does. the traditional translation of the hebrew was “He”. the septuagint stayed true to that. the problem is that going from the original to a translation, to another translation can mess you up. if jerome knew the original language (hebrew), then he would have known the traditional translation was “He” and by making it “She”, he changed the tradition. if he didn’t know the original language, then it was just his mistake.
The Septuagint alone has “he.” The Hebrew is much more flexible, and is actually suited better by a “they” or a “she.” For this reason, the JPS translation of the Tanakh translates “they,” whereas the Douay “she.”

Other Christian translations base their decision of translating “he” on old messianic tradition, supported by the Septuagint, regarding a personal savior or moshiach.

But to respond to the OP, I have heard this quote before and it is no exceptional instance. As quotable of a guy as Martin Luther is (and trust me, he is and has some beautiful observations about God and the world), his theology is shifty, lacking any definite shape or form, his wit lacking, and his attitude oftentimes childish. Most would agree that he was a rather stubborn fellow–and one that oftentimes struggled with accepted the grace and the mercy of God and letting that be sufficient. It’s sad that it’s so…

Just my two cents.
 
]

That’s the difference with the Septuagint.
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by Jews, whose native language was Hebrew.

The word was masculine in the original Hebrew text and they translated this to the Greek as masculine.
]The words of gender allow either reading.
:rotfl:

Think about that for awhile. I’m pretty sure that is not what you meant to say.
 
Doesn’t that violate “Sola Scriptura”?

Using sources outside of The Holy Bible to prove doctrine?

:confused:
Pardon me for butting in, but it’s not a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of language.

My mother told me a story about being in England when she was very young.

She checked into a hotel and the clerk asked, “Would you like me to knock you up in the morning?”

His words sounded a bit shocking until she realized he was asking if she wanted a wakeup call.

Back then they would knock on the door to wake you instead of calling your room.

In order to accurately translate that line from British English to US English, you would need to use different words.

That was Martin Luther’s explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top