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

[Ginger2]

The Septuagint alone has “he.” .

Then how did the English end up reading as “she”?

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.”.

You are mistaken. The Hebrew is singular masculine.

JPS translation of the Tanakh is an error, just like the Douay Rheims.

To suggest Hebrews had no way to distinguish gender in their language is ridiculous and untrue. A simple comparison between verses will demonstrate a clear distinction.

Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers” (“offspring” here is plural, meaning all mankind)

The focus shifts in the second line to singular 3rd person masculine: hu - he (3rd person) and.atah - you (2nd person)
“He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” This is a prophesy of the Messiah.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

You still haven’t given any proof that the deutero’s were contained in the Jewish septuagint.

In the post where you provided a link you just linked to articles on the septuagint but really doesn’t help since they are just going to say the same thing, that the earliest septuagint manuscripts we have are all Christian and date only to the 4th or 5th century.

Neither Philo or Josephus lists the deutero’s among the inspired text.

If you have some source that lays out what was in the Jewish septuagint please post it but you should refrain from making claims that you can’t back up.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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

There are many problems with the logic you are using here as well as the work scripturecatholic.com does on this.

a.) Simply quoting or alluding to a book means absolutely nothing since the NT quotes from books that we both agree are non-canonical.

b.) I don’t dispute that the septuagint was used but you are making a tremendous leap in logic to say that since Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint they accepted the deutero’s as inspired since you haven’t even shown what the Jewish septuagint consisted of.

Scripturecatholic’s list is flawed as I will show later.

 

[Pwrlftr]

2ndGen,

You posted a link to scripturecatholic.com. I have looked at that link before but the list he/she provides has some major issues.

For example:
(the below is from one of my older posts)

The very first entry in the list that says:
Scripture Catholic:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Okay, let’s take a look at:
Matthew 2:16-18:

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 18 “ A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they care no more.

We see from the text itself:
a.) no mention of Wisdom
b.) the statement that the prophecy comes from Jeremiah, which reads as follows:

Jeremiah:

15 Thus says the Lord: “ A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”

It appears to me (and Matthew too) that the prophecy clearly comes from Jeremiah, mainly because Matthew tells us this. But let’s be fair and look at Wisdom 11:1-8
Wisdom 11:1-7:

Wisdom 11:1-8 She prospered their works in the hands of the holy prophet. 2 They went through wildernesses that were not inhabited, and in desert places they pitched their tents. 3 They stood against their enemies, and revenged themselves of their adversaries. 4 They were thirsty, and they called upon thee, and water was given them out of the high rock, and a refreshment of their thirst out of the hard stone. 5 For by what things their enemies were punished, when their drink failed them, while the children of Israel abounded therewith, and rejoiced: 6 By the same things they in their need were benefited. 7 For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust. 8 And whilst they were diminished for a manifest reproof of their murdering the infants, thou gavest to thine abundant water unlooked for:

It seems that Wisdom is describing Israel’s plight in Egypt and the wilderness doesn’t it? I think this is a case of one of your Catholic apologists trying too hard to make his case.

But, let’s not stop here, let’s see what at least one other Catholic source says. Let’s look at the Haydock commentary.

The Haydock Commentary (hardly a pro-Protestant) source says that the prophecy in Matthew comes from Jeremiah too.
Haydock:

16 Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: 18 A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

I don’t see how you have any case at all for the first item on the list at Scripture Catholic.

As for the rest of the list it to has some serious issues. Certainly not every item is as problematic for him as the one we just looked at but there are others that are even more outrageous.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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).

There is no evidence that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s. You can’t remove something at Jamnia if it didn’t even come up in discussion.

As of right now you have provided zero evidence as to what books the Jewish septuagint consisted of.

Now, let’s make it easier, instead of focusing on the septuagint, can you provide a list of books the Pharisees considered canonical other than posting your opinion on the matter?

 

[2ndGen]

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.

 

[2ndGen]

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.

When I grow theologically, I hope to be as eloquant as you ST. A!

 

[bengal_fan]

When I grow theologically, I hope to be as eloquant as you ST. A!

you should make sure he’s right first.

he’s not.

 

[2ndGen]

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.

Ginger,

Your argument would be valid if language was the issue here. But as I’ve stated before, it wasn’t.

It was what has become to be known as “Prima Luther” where his personal interpretation truimphs Christianity.

Proof that it wasn’t language related? A German Christian Bible already existed over a thousand years before Martin Luther was even born. It never included the word alone. A 2nd edition was published with modern German a hundred years before Luther was born. It never said “alone”. No Bible before Martin Luther was born used the word alone. No Bible after Luther was born used the word alone.

He inserted the word there literally stating that he had full knowledge that he was adding it without ever stating that he was correcting the original German translation. Martin Luther never defended himself the way your defending him. You’re saying something he never claimed.

No matter how you boil it, he bases Sola Scriptura coincidentally on “his” version of the bible on that very verse. When one changes God’s Word, they can create whatever doctrine they want to and say that God said so.

If Martin was correct (as if Jerome had been correct), Protestantism would’ve continuted to translate the verse with the word alone in it. That one word completely changes the meaning of the text.

I’m not going to suggest that the reason that Protestantism “didn’t” include the word was because of all the infighting amoungst themselves which later would cause them to break off from themselves and each go on to create their own doctrines and beliefs and methods of worship and bible versions, but I am going to right here, right now stand up for the Reformers in that they knew that Luther’s action was wrong and they stood up to him.

In essense, the Reformers “protested” Luther.

I believe he was wrong. The Reformers believe he was wrong. Protestants believe he was wrong. Today, almost all biblical translators believe he was wrong.

He was wrong.

 

[2ndGen]

you should make sure he’s right first.

he’s not.

Coming from you, that’s endorsement enough for me!

LOL!

Hey, Jacksonville?

I was down there last year round this time.

You guys got a taste of the Winter down there didn’t ya?

 

[2ndGen]

You still haven’t given any proof that the deutero’s were contained in the Jewish septuagint.

In the post where you provided a link you just linked to articles on the septuagint but really doesn’t help since they are just going to say the same thing, that the earliest septuagint manuscripts we have are all Christian and date only to the 4th or 5th century.

Neither Philo or Josephus lists the deutero’s among the inspired text.

If you have some source that lays out what was in the Jewish septuagint please post it but you should refrain from making claims that you can’t back up.

There were a good dozen sources that independently stated that the Septugaint was canonized in 200 “BC”. If the Jews weren’t using it, who was? It was a Jewish creation.

And some of those articles state outright that it was being used by the Jews.

And since it was the only text used in The Temple (along with the Palestinian text), then it was the only one Christians could’ve used when creating their own canon.

And…Jesus quoted from them directly (and not from the Palestinian canon).

 

[bengal_fan]

bengal_fan;3157075:

Sounds exactly like what Protestantism criticized Catholics for doing and what they based protesting us on. Are you Catholic by any chance?

nope, not catholic. it also has nothing to do with what protestants criticized catholics for. luther, calvin, and the like had no problem with and actually preached community and experiencing Christ within community. they never would have started churches if they had thought it was wrong. they also established teaching authorities within the churches. they just didn’t believe that the magisterium was inerrant or the pope infallible. luther, more than anything, wanted dialogue. he wanted to talk about the problems he saw (in practice mostly) within the church. when the pope refused (more so his delegates and mostly for political reasons) to let luther debate his conclusions, luther then began to speak out against the pope (and not really the office but the man).

So in other words…“sola scriptura”, only scripture is binding doctrine?

nope, not sola. what you are saying is “solo” (scripture by itself). “sola” says that scripture is the only authority. “prima” says that scripture is one of a number of authorities, but it is the highest authority. all of them say that all doctrines of the church are subject to scripture.

“…not specificially derived from scripture…”

“…using other sources to learn doctrine doesn’t go against sola scritpura…”

How could I ever argue with that?

sorry i confuse you… i guess when you come in with pre-conceived notions about things and just looking to “share the truth” (in your view) you will get confused when people offer alternative viewpoints that actually make sense.

 

[bengal_fan]

Coming from you, that’s endorsement enough for me!

LOL!

Hey, Jacksonville?

I was down there last year round this time.

You guys got a taste of the Winter down there didn’t ya?

yeah, it’s been cold. some record setting lows lately.

i meant it though. you should make sure he’s right. the hebrew does determine gender. it’s the greek that makes it more ambiguous. the translation from the greek is what has caused the confusion. but i like st. a and many of his posts.

 

[2ndGen]

There are many problems with the logic you are using here as well as the work scripturecatholic.com does on this.

a.) Simply quoting or alluding to a book means absolutely nothing since the NT quotes from books that we both agree are non-canonical.

b.) I don’t dispute that the septuagint was used but you are making a tremendous leap in logic to say that since Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint they accepted the deutero’s as inspired since you haven’t even shown what the Jewish septuagint consisted of.

Scripturecatholic’s list is flawed as I will show later.

Tell you what, when you can prove that Jesus considered the books He quoted from “not” inspired by God, that He refered to as scripture, “then” I’ll believe you.

But if He called them scripture, then to me, as a universal Christian who follows Christ, He’s the ultimate authority.

 

[bengal_fan]

i think i’ll bow out of this thread now. the starting premise was hostile (in my opinion) and i never really should have joined in. it’s not an exchange of views or seeking to learn from each other, it’s an attack on luther and passing it down to all protestants. i think some good things have been said in here, but the majority attitude (mine included) is not charitable. sorry for where i’ve been less than charitable.

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen,

You posted a link to scripturecatholic.com. I have looked at that link before but the list he/she provides has some major issues.

For example:
(the below is from one of my older posts)

The very first entry in the list that says:

Okay, let’s take a look at:

We see from the text itself:
a.) no mention of Wisdom
b.) the statement that the prophecy comes from Jeremiah, which reads as follows:

It appears to me (and Matthew too) that the prophecy clearly comes from Jeremiah, mainly because Matthew tells us this. But let’s be fair and look at Wisdom 11:1-8

It seems that Wisdom is describing Israel’s plight in Egypt and the wilderness doesn’t it? I think this is a case of one of your Catholic apologists trying too hard to make his case.

But, let’s not stop here, let’s see what at least one other Catholic source says. Let’s look at the Haydock commentary.

The Haydock Commentary (hardly a pro-Protestant) source says that the prophecy in Matthew comes from Jeremiah too.

I don’t see how you have any case at all for the first item on the list at Scripture Catholic.

As for the rest of the list it to has some serious issues. Certainly not every item is as problematic for him as the one we just looked at but there are others that are even more outrageous.

Pw…it only takes “one”.

 

[2ndGen]

There is no evidence that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s. You can’t remove something at Jamnia if it didn’t even come up in discussion.

As of right now you have provided zero evidence as to what books the Jewish septuagint consisted of.

Now, let’s make it easier, instead of focusing on the septuagint, can you provide a list of books the Pharisees considered canonical other than posting your opinion on the matter?

I’ve provided secular and Protestant sources that you could’ve easily have read and seen that they listed the following books in The Septugaint;

Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon,
Wisdom of Jesus Seirach,
Baruch,
Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon),
additions to Esther,
1 Maccabees,
2 Maccabees,
3 Maccabees,
4 Maccabees,
1 Esdras,
Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and
Psalm 151.

You asked, I provided. Since you are the accuser here, you have to prove that they “don’t” exist and “never” existed in The Septugaint.

You just don’t want to believe what is historically accepted by mankind…that “that” is the list of the canon of The Septugaint.

 

[2ndGen]

i think i’ll bow out of this thread now. the starting premise was hostile (in my opinion) and i never really should have joined in. it’s not an exchange of views or seeking to learn from each other, it’s an attack on luther and passing it down to all protestants. i think some good things have been said in here, but the majority attitude (mine included) is not charitable. sorry for where i’ve been less than charitable.

Actually, I praised Protestants for their adhering to The Word of God over Luther’s error.

But, take care.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

Your argument would be valid if language was the issue here. But as I’ve stated before, it wasn’t.

It really is about language as you would see if you had read all of LM’s letter instead of just an excerpt.

In essense, the Reformers “protested” Luther.

I believe he was wrong. The Reformers believe he was wrong. **Protestants believe he was wrong. **Today, almost all biblical translators believe he was wrong.

He was wrong.

In a way, you are agreeing with my position that Protestants don’t believe Sola Scriptura in the sense the Catholics define it.

Below is an excerpt from ML’s letter:
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! … I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then. I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now that it has been translated into German and completed, all can read and criticize it. …

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

I am taking Luther at his word. Certainly including alone in our English translations can be misleading. But, I cannot judge if Luther was correct concerning his analogy of the German language.

 

[2ndGen]

In a way, you are agreeing with my position that Protestants don’t believe Sola Scriptura in the sense the Catholics define it.

Below is an excerpt from ML’s letter:
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

Actually, we are in agreement. I believe that Protestants today reject Sola Scriptura as it was meant to be. I believe that they keep it as part of their doctrinal make up (those that do because some outrightly reject it althogether), but don’t believe in it either as Luther intended it or completely.

Here’s a great way to pretty much shut down this thread…

1. When was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura created/revealed…before or after Luther added the word “alone” in his bible?