Easy big fellow I did not say they did not believe in Jesus they believed he was a great teacher. I said they did not believe in the deity of Jesus.
when one says "believe in jesus" that's generally what they mean.
The ones prior to Jesus time was looking for his coming. He just did not arrive on a white charger and set up His kingdom like they had envisioned. So they refused to accept Him as their King.
then their expectations were not of jesus, were they?
Sorry to disappoint you I can read the Greek one.
i am as inclined to believe this point as i am the one you made about your expertise in hebrew. untill you start making arguments based on that text instead of merely appealing to its authority, i'm not going to believe you.
in fact,
here is a thread where such an argument based on the grammar of the greek text would be more than welcome. in fact, you've already posted in this thread, but did so without actually making such an argument. if you care to demonstrate your knowledge of koine greek by describing the grammatical structure of the first verse of genesis, please do so.
The septuagint was completed long before Christ arrived. He quoted it and the Apostles quoted it. Greek was the basic language of the day.
jesus spoke aramaic. the quotes attributed to him by the authors of the new testament were indeed lifted from the LXX. but jesus also in one very prominent occassion quotes the bible in aramaic.
The masoretic text as you pointed out was started many years after Christ. It was not finished until the 10th or llth century.
the masoretic seems to date to about the time of the new testament. the oldest text is the 10th or 11th century, but it matches the DSS with a high degree of precision.
There is a high degree of correlation between the masoretic and the septuagint. They came from the same originals.
indeed. so what's the point in championing one version, particularly the one that has been rendered in another language? like the title up there says, this is
not a septuagint v. masoretic issue. they say the same thing --
you are reading it incorrectly.
All am saying is the Jews who did not believe in the Deity of Jesus had an agenda to get references to that and a few other things out of their way.
yes, it's all a jewish conspiracy. classy argument, that one.
think the first verse is pretty much the same.
I got no problem with: In the beginning God created (made)(either word)the heaven and the earth,
and what follows is the description of how.
You say it is a dependent clause. Why?
...because it is. for the actual argument regarding that, please see the link above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.