(January 8, 2013 at 6:41 am)Aractus Wrote:
Now Mr Giwer, how about you don't link to your homepage with your first post, and worse, cut and paste its entire contents here?
I noticed no rule against it. It is not my home page but merely a small topic of my website. Please do not think my interests are so limited. Should go to the original the page I posted contains a few dozen links which are the substance of the discussion.
Quote:Do you expect us to go and read all that horseshit?
I frankly do not care what you do. I simply put up the summary and left the rest to those interested.
Quote:How about you go here:
http://blog.aractus.com/
And read all the pages, fuck I'll cut and paste it here for you?
Ah no, I don't think so.
What you do is your business. I do not see why you are coming on as some loud mouth high school bully nor why you have me confused with someone who gives a damn about your opinion, limited that it is.
Quote:"The Septuagint is the original Old Testament" REALLY??
To repeat I invite any and all physical evidence to the contrary. I presume your response means you have none. (Confounding first post here with first post ever is a mistake.)
Quote:I find it comical that anyone, except perhaps eastern orthodox loonies, would believe such bullshit. There isn't even one single complete LXX manuscript you douchebag,
Love you too. Frankly I see no justification for such juvenalia. Perhaps you are just pissed at your first day back in school.
Quote:which by the way you can learn here:
http://blog.aractus.com/search-for-the-septuagint/
"The Septuagint" is nothing more than the fifth column of the Hexapla, thus you cannot date it earlier than 245 AD HA! Oh and since the book of Daniel is only found in Codex Chisianus (although I should point out another copy has supposedly been found that I don't know anything about), that means you don't have a complete copy older than the 9th century of it.
Let me guess "waawaawaawaa"?
As educated people know, the oldest copy or oldest reference to the material is used to date ancient works. It is not necessary to have a copy to date material. Of course the exact content is open to question. Clearly the idea of canonical did not exist prior to the 3rd c. AD. For example Josephus says Jews have only 22 sacred books and unfortunately does not name them.
As to earliest reference to the Septuagint Josephus towards the end of the 1st c. AD quotes from the forgery called the Letter of Aristeas, which dates to at least the early 1st c. AD. Thus the Septuagint clearly existed as this forgery was created to give it authenticity. That knocks more than two centuries off of your 245 AD Hexapla claim which is not debatable. There is less clear evidence which is debatable dating the letter and therefore the substance of the letter to the mid-late 2nd c. BC. We can go into that if you like but I doubt you will.
There is no evidence the Septuagint was ever intended to be a complete collection of books any more than the New Testament was intended as a single collection. There are a lot of books that didn't make the official cut like Wisdom of Solomon and that one with the Watchers whose name escapes me. Dozens of gospels and letters didn't make the NT final cut either. Where Daniel is found is immaterial as is the Cinderella story of Ester.
Quote:Go find some real evidence, and peddle this easily refutable bullshit elsewhere!
As you have refuted nothing but rather given me the opportunity to further support my position, Thank you. OTOH you have produced no physical evidence of there having been a Hebrew version older than the Septuagint. That is what I said.
Other points are there is no evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until the 2nd c. BC after exposure to the Greeks. That puts an age limit on just how old the "hebrew" could be. As the contents of all the books are fiction and fantasy there is no basis for internal "dating" of the context. Except for Daniel which does date to the 2nd c. BC when the prophesies change from all correct to all wrong.
There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. Some of the DSS and the later Mishna plus two letters found along with the DSS are the only examples of it. The pre-Greek inscriptions found in bibleland are clearly Phoenician and the Roman era Aramaic and Greek. That believers like to call the Phoenician proto-Hebrew is amusing at best.
The DSS is an abbreviated version of the Septuagint and the Masoretic an abbreviated version of the DSS. There is nothing in the Masoretic that is not in the DSS and nothing in the DSS that is not in the Septuagint. Clearly were the DSS the original this cannot be explained. That all points to the Septuagint being the original and clearly the oldest. It leaves Hebrew as a liturgical language or a pidgin of Greek and Aramaic.
The wag can simply say if the Septuagint were the translation there would be no need for a forgery to "authenticate" it.
