A "redaction" is simply an "edit", such as would occur in a translation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redaction

The Septuagint, which found its way into the New Testament, contained numerous "redactions":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Quote:Some of the Hebrew language manuscripts in the Dead Sea scrolls could be as old or older than the Septuagint, but it doesn't matter.

It actually does matter because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Par for the course, there.

(July 1, 2017 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: A "redaction" is simply an "edit", such as would occur in a translation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redaction

The Septuagint, which found its way into the New Testament, contained numerous "redactions":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Are you saying that when the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint they made changes to the verses they quoted?

(July 1, 2017 at 10:46 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 1, 2017 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: A "redaction" is simply an "edit", such as would occur in a translation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redaction

The Septuagint, which found its way into the New Testament, contained numerous "redactions":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Are you saying that when the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint they made changes to the verses they quoted?

From the sound of things, anonymous people were making changes to everything at numerous times throughout its history. Not surprising; what's surprising is that while the content is as abhorrent as it is, it can be ignored or rationalized by the victims of its poisonous theology. But let's forget that-if this is the message a deity wants to get through to its people, where's the hand of divine correction?

Quote:Are you saying that when the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint they made changes to the verses they quoted?

In some cases they invented them outright.

Quote:And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Except there is no such "prophecy" in the OT.  Matty made it up.

(June 28, 2017 at 10:43 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Are they Amalekites ?

You are not supposed to know anything about the Amalekites.  Purge them from your memory.

Exodus 17:14 (NOG) = "Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this reminder on a scroll, and make sure that Joshua hears it, too: I will completely erase any memory of the Amalekites from the earth.”"

Um.....  looks like they fucked that up too.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Amalekites

Multiple statements about them in the fucking bible.  In fact, the only place they don't seem to exist at all is in real life!

(July 1, 2017 at 1:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 1, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Lek Wrote: I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls would refute this.

The earliest tangible evidence for your silly bible are fragments of the Septuagint.  It was written in Greek.  The significance of the DSS is that, among Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, they contain the earliest Hebrew accounts.  Do try to keep up.

The Septuagint is a fake.  It's just a Greek language translation of the Bible written in the Modern Greek alphaphet sometime after the 8th Century.  The Bible as a comprehensive book didn't exist before the year 692 when it was published as a 75 pounder by a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists in England.

---

(July 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Minimalist Wrote: Um.....  looks like they fucked that up too.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Amalekites

Multiple statements about them in the fucking bible.  In fact, the only place they don't seem to exist at all is in real life!

The writers put in countless little gems like that to show that they were just pulling a giant prank when they wrote the Bible.  It's easy to find them today using a computer.

Scholars generally accept the 4th century Codex Vaticanus as the oldest more or less complete bible, slightly older than the Codex Sinaiticus.  It contains a virtually complete text of the Septuagint.

Although it IS missing the longer ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultery bullshit story which was added to "John."

(July 2, 2017 at 2:04 am)Minimalist Wrote: Scholars generally accept the 4th century Codex Vaticanus as the oldest more or less complete bible, slightly older than the Codex Sinaiticus.  It contains a virtually complete text of the Septuagint.

Although it IS missing the longer ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultery bullshit story which was added to "John."

It's in everyones' best interest to backdate the creation of the Bible.  It's a big business.  But the first Bibles were produced in 692 A.D.  when three copies were made.  They were 75 pounds each.  There was no comprehensive Bible before that time.