Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] Jonah's Fast

Expand Messages
  • Peter D. Sleman
    Steve, Thanks to the link, now we have proof that you plagiarized...hehe... +Either way, I still don t buy that answer. Besides, HG is very clear that it
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 22, 2005
      Steve,
      Thanks to the link, now we have proof that you plagiarized...hehe...
       
      +Either way, I still don't buy that answer. Besides, HG is very clear that it doesn't say how long they fasted "The Holy Bible does not tell us exactly how many days the people of Nineveh fasted."  He only tries to explain where the 3 days in the midnight praises came from.  The Bible is infallible, I'm not ready to say that same thing about the midnight praises just yet.  A quick look at the Hebrew Lexicon shows that the word used is "'arba`iym", meaning 40.  We all know how strict the Jews were about translation, so I'm gonna stick to it.
       
      +About Christ's fasting...There's no way we can just attribute this to His divinity.  Look at the verse (Matthew 4:2) carefully. "And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry." If He was capable of doing because of His divinity, there's no reason for Him to be hungry.  Besides bro, stranger things have happened.  In Exodus a big sea divided, in Kings the sun went backward, in Ezekiel bones lived, 3 dudes walked in fire, and the Man rose up from the dead after 3 days....Let's not get scientific, "with God all things are possible."
       
      +Moses didn't take food up with him on the mountain.  I won't concede that point just yet, I'll find you proof later.
       
      PRAY FOR ME,
      E+++++++++++
      T+++++++++++
      E+++++++++++
      R+++++++++++

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "steve yacoub" <stevey820@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:06 AM
      Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] Jonah's Fast

      >
      > Peter,
      >
      > If you don't buy this answer, I
      suggest you take it up with HG Bishop
      > Youseff, because this is all
      him.  Here is the link for the answer. 
      >
      href="http://suscopts.org/q&a/j.html#qjon2">http://suscopts.org/q&a/j.html#qjon2
      >
      > I suggest e-mailing His Grace if this is not
      sufficient.
      >
      > I will say this, you gave me several examples of
      things that God allows to
      > happen, in which I agree with you. 
      However, I do have a few comments.
      >
      > 1.  Christ is God and
      therefore, we cannot separate His divinity from His
      > humanity, and in
      that instant, it is obvious that this was due to His
      > divinity.
      >
      > 2.  We can "infer?"  Since when do we infer?  You gotta
      give me solid proof
      > on that one.
      >
      > 3.  Check the
      Doxology for the fast of Jonah the prophet, and it says "For
      > three days
      and three nights, they were in prayer and fasting, with pain and
      >
      teares, with the birds and animals."
      >
      > If you still feel the need
      for more research, please go ahead and let us
      > know what you get
      too
      >
      > Pray for me
      > Steve
      >
      >>From: "Peter
      D. Sleman" <
      soulseeker@...>
      >>Reply-To:
      href="mailto:stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com">stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com
      >>To: <stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com>
      >>Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] Jonah's
      Fast
      >>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:07:06
      -0500
      >>
      >>Steve,
      >>
      >>(First I'd like to
      say that this is the work of Mr. Lawyer Labib, who's
      >>just
      >>itching to get a debate started over any
      topic.)
      >>
      >>A few points:
      >>+1
      >>"Because
      no human can stay without food or drink for 40 days"
      >>Hmm...I don't
      buy that comment.  There are things that seems impossible to
      >>us,
      but yet God allows them to happen.  Look at these examples:
      >>
      >>     Christ: Fasted for 40
      days and forty nights.  It doesn't say that he
      >>ate
      >>or drank anything. See
      Matthew
      >>     Moses: On the mountain for 40 days,
      we can probably infer that he
      >>didn't
      >>get food there
      either, unless he found a mountain goat.  He was well over
      >>80
      >>years old by this time.  Realistically a guy that
      old can't fast.
      >>     Ezekiel: Look in Ezekiel
      4:4.  God tells this guy to lie on his side
      >>for
      >>390
      days.  One side.  Then when He was done with him, He told him to turn
      >>over.
      >>
      >>There are other instances, I'm
      working on something right now, but if you
      >>want, I'll give you
      more.
      >>
      >>+2
      >>"However, in the Septugiant, which is
      the official translation of the old
      >>testament"
      >>Don't start
      Septugiant on me.  We've been through this many times before.
      >>The OFFICIAL translation of the Old Testament is the
      HEBREW.  The
      >>Septugiant
      >>version was GREEK.  I'm
      not saying your answer is wrong, we'd have to look
      >>it up, but I don't
      buy this Septugiant stuff, unless you know Greek and
      >>Hebrew, and they
      both agree.
      >>
      >>PRAY FOR
      ME,
      >>E+++++++++++
      >>T+++++++++++
      >>E+++++++++++
      >>R+++++++++++
      >>
      >>-----
      Original Message -----
      >>From: "steve yacoub" <
      href="mailto:stevey820@...">stevey820@...>
      >>To: <
      href="mailto:stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com">stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com>
      >>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:13
      PM
      >>Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] Jonah's
      Fast
      >>
      >>
      >> >
      >> > The Ninevites
      fasted 3 days during that time, not forty.  Although all
      >>the
      >> > new biblical versions say 40 days, in Jonah
      3:4, however, in the
      >> > septugiant,
      >> > which is the
      official translation of the old testament, uses 3 days.
      >> >
      >> > Also, in verse 7, its says they did not eat or drink, and
      therefore,
      >>this
      >> > would eliminate 40 days, cause no
      human can stay without food or drink
      >>for
      >> > 40
      days.
      >> >
      >> > Lastly, if you check the midnight
      praise, that also says 3 days.
      >> >
      >> > Bring on more
      Dave!!
      >> > Happy Fasting
      >> >
      >> >
      Steve
      >> >
      >> >>From: David Labib <
      href="mailto:davelabib@...">davelabib@...>
      >> >>Reply-To:
      href="mailto:stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com">stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com
      >> >>To: stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com
      >> >>Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] Jonah's Fast
      >> >>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:48:56 -0800 (PST)
      >> >>
      >> >>Hey everybody,
      >> >>
      >> >>How long was the fast of the Jonah?  Please submit your
      answer.
      >> >>
      >> >>Hint:  You will need to
      research both Biblical references and the Hymns.
      >> >>
      >> >>Pray for me,
      >> >>Dave
      >> >>
      >> >>soliman09@... wrote:
      >> >>Greetings,
      >> >>
      >> >>We will begin the
      Fast of Jonah on Monday February 21.  Services will
      >>take
      >> >>place Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday
      from
      >> >>4 P.M. to 7 P.M. in the evening. On Thursday and Friday
      there will be
      >> >>liturgies from 9 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. 
      Please try to come and receive the
      >> >>blessing of this
      beautiful fast.
      >> >>
      >> >>Pray for the
      Service
      >> >>St. Mark Deacons
      >> >>_______________________________________________
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>---------------------------------
      >> >>Yahoo! Groups
      Links
      >> >>
      >> >>    To visit your
      group on the web, go to:
      >> >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/
      >> >>
      >> >>    To unsubscribe from this group,
      send an email to:
      >> >>stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >> >>
      >> >>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
      subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>---------------------------------
      >> >>Do you
      Yahoo!?
      >> >>  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second
      Term'
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > Yahoo! Groups
      Links
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      Sponsor --------------------~-->
      > What would our lives be like
      without music, dance, and theater?
      > Donate or volunteer in the arts today
      at Network for Good!
      >
      href="http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/m.VolB/TM">http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/m.VolB/TM
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
      >

      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > <*>
      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      >   
      href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/
      >
      > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send
      an email to:
      >   
      href="mailto:stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
      to:
      >   
      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      >
      >
      >
    • David Labib
      Good research guys. A few points: As Peter points out, HG Bishop Youssef says that the correct answer is unclear. But the hymns and the Septaugint do point to
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
        Good research guys.
         
        A few points:
         
        As Peter points out, HG Bishop Youssef says that the correct answer is unclear.  But the hymns and the Septaugint do point to the 3 days.  KJV and other versions do show 40 days. It is not impossible for men to fast for 40 days, however, it is unlikely that an entire city did.   Also consider the additional evidence that even animals didn't eat.  I think this, coupled with our tradition in the hymns and the Septuagint, suggest 3 days. 
         
        I didn't clarify this because I didn't think anybody was that interested due to a lack of responses.
         
        Finally, no Bible version has been proclaimed as absolute in authority.  Use both for your studies.  Most teachers use many translations to understand different verses.  I think we should do the same.
         
        Good job - now answer the second question.
        Pray for me,
        Dave


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
      • David Labib
        In looking at the previous dialogue, a few points need to be addressed. First, we never separate Christ s humanity and divinity. After Christ fasted, he was
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
          In looking at the previous dialogue, a few points need to be
          addressed.

          First, we never separate Christ's humanity and divinity. After
          Christ fasted, he was as hungry as any man would have naturally been;
          at the same time, He was God.

          Second, it was possible that these people fasted without food, but it
          is both unclear and unlikely. The Septuagint version says three days
          and so does the tasbeha.

          Third, we should not dismiss tasbeha or the church hymns so easily.
          We are a traditional church and our Bible is a tradition same as
          tasbeha. I do agree that the Bible takes priority if something is
          contradicted, but that is not the case here.

          Forth, why should we go so far to discredit tasbeha and the
          Septuagint in support of simply, another translation of the Bible?

          Fifth, Peter, the Hebrew that you quoted from was created in the
          first century after the destruction of the temple and was a
          translation of the Greek Septuagint. That translation is the basis
          of most translations today. The original Hebrew that you referred to
          as the basis of the Greek does not exist.

          Sixth, Peter mentioned how strict the Jews were and that was a good
          reason to stick to that translation. It is well documented that this
          Hebrew translation was based on a plot by the Jews in the first
          century to conceal the divinity of Christ, a figure who threatened
          their religion. When their religion was threated, the Jews crucified
          Christ; when their religion was threatened, the Jews tried to conceal
          His divinity in the OT. See "Ancient Christian Commentary on
          Scripture" Genesis, Vol. 1 - in the introduction.

          Lastly, one does not need to know Greek or Hebrew in order to accept
          the Septuagint or the Hebrew versions or translations of them. Like
          Peter exemplified with his usage of the Hebrew lexicon, all one needs
          is the right resources.

          My opinion is to use all the resources and do not discredit one
          version over the other. This issue was not meant to strike
          controversy, but rather to encourage research and an appreciation for
          our tradition, hymns and Bible.

          Now, my second is "Why do we fast 55 days?" State the two opinions.
          The answers will not be found in the Bible; it is based on
          tradition.

          Peace,
          Dave
        • Michael Sleman
          ... ... the Hebrew that you quoted from was created in the first century after the destruction of the temple and was a translation of the Greek Septuagint.
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
            ---
            ... the Hebrew that you quoted from was created in the
            first century after the destruction of the temple and was a
            translation of the Greek Septuagint. That translation is the basis
            of most translations today. The original Hebrew that you referred to
            as the basis of the Greek does not exist.
            ----

            Dave, what is the evidence that the original Hebrew is missing? Are you
            saying with the destruction of the temple, all copies of the Hebrew
            Scripture disappeared? How about all those scribes whose entire job was
            to make copies of the Hebrew text letter by letter? Are we implying that
            God would let the original scriptures disappear and only leave us with a
            translation?

            All these questions got me thinking so I did a little search on
            "Masoretic Texts" which are the basis of modern translations and the
            "Dead Sea Scrolls" which were found just over 50 years ago. Carbon Dating
            dated the Dead Sea Scrolls dated them to the third century B.C. to 68
            A.D. The destruction of the temple was actually in 70 A.D. It seems that
            these scrolls were not translated after the destruction of the temple as
            you mentioned earlier but rather were most probably there before the
            birth of Christ and during his life. Scholarly review of the Masoretic
            Texts as compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the scribes of the
            Masoretic Texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead
            Sea Scrolls.
            [http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9504a.htm%5d

            I think we're treading on very thin ground with this subject here so
            before we state any facts, let's double check them and provide
            references. This is a great chance for us all to learn.

            --Michael

            --- David Labib <davelabib@...> wrote:

            >
            > In looking at the previous dialogue, a few points need to be
            > addressed.
            >
            > First, we never separate Christ's humanity and divinity. After
            > Christ fasted, he was as hungry as any man would have naturally been;
            > at the same time, He was God.
            >
            > Second, it was possible that these people fasted without food, but it
            > is both unclear and unlikely. The Septuagint version says three days
            > and so does the tasbeha.
            >
            > Third, we should not dismiss tasbeha or the church hymns so easily.
            > We are a traditional church and our Bible is a tradition same as
            > tasbeha. I do agree that the Bible takes priority if something is
            > contradicted, but that is not the case here.
            >
            > Forth, why should we go so far to discredit tasbeha and the
            > Septuagint in support of simply, another translation of the Bible?
            >
            > Fifth, Peter, the Hebrew that you quoted from was created in the
            > first century after the destruction of the temple and was a
            > translation of the Greek Septuagint. That translation is the basis
            > of most translations today. The original Hebrew that you referred to
            > as the basis of the Greek does not exist.
            >
            > Sixth, Peter mentioned how strict the Jews were and that was a good
            > reason to stick to that translation. It is well documented that this
            > Hebrew translation was based on a plot by the Jews in the first
            > century to conceal the divinity of Christ, a figure who threatened
            > their religion. When their religion was threated, the Jews crucified
            > Christ; when their religion was threatened, the Jews tried to conceal
            > His divinity in the OT. See "Ancient Christian Commentary on
            > Scripture" Genesis, Vol. 1 - in the introduction.
            >
            > Lastly, one does not need to know Greek or Hebrew in order to accept
            > the Septuagint or the Hebrew versions or translations of them. Like
            > Peter exemplified with his usage of the Hebrew lexicon, all one needs
            > is the right resources.
            >
            > My opinion is to use all the resources and do not discredit one
            > version over the other. This issue was not meant to strike
            > controversy, but rather to encourage research and an appreciation for
            > our tradition, hymns and Bible.
            >
            > Now, my second is "Why do we fast 55 days?" State the two opinions.
            > The answers will not be found in the Bible; it is based on
            > tradition.
            >
            > Peace,
            > Dave
            >
            >
            >
            >




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
            http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
          • David Labib
            Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the Hebrew available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek Septuagint. All websites
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
              Almost all my research has turned up the same thing.  First, the Hebrew available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek Septuagint.  All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.  Here are some references:
               
              This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
               
              "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second century A.D."
               
              Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older text.  That older text is different from the Masoretic.  In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it proves that the Masoretic is different.
               
              "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible).    Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to the LXX translation." http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
               
              These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike. 
               
              I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of the temple.  Please do not take my words out of context.  I only said that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
               
              Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea Scroll is incomplete.  Here is another source:
              "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."   http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
               
              Here is another source:
              "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT). Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
               
               
              Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
              "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other translations.
              The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
               
              Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity of Christ.
               
              "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of it being the first substantial work ever translated into another language."
              "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the LXX as their Bible.    Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew�s attitude toward it.    After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. � Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."  http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
              "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them cursing the day of its appearance. "
               
              Also, check the book reference that I posted before.  Fr. Athanasius sells the entire series.
               
              I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine the Masoretic.  Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.  Might some of these sources be incorrect?  Yes.  Might they all be incorrect?  I don't think so.  Bottom line, with this much information, we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
               
              As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all.  You all want to hold on to our traditions dearly.  That is what makes us a special and rich church.  But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of.  We should not close the door so soon. 
               
              Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my references.
              Peace,
              Dave


              Do you Yahoo!?
              Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
            • Ihab Labib
              In the Name of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God, to Him alone is due all glory, majesty, worship, and
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
                 
                 

                In the Name of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity,

                the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God, to Him alone is due all glory,

                         majesty, worship, and submission forever, ever, Amen

                 

                My Beloved,

                1)      What is the name of the fasting? Jonah’s.

                 

                2)        What is the name of the feast, we celebrate at the end of the fast? Jonah's Passover.

                 

                3)       Why do we fast Jonah's fasting? 

                ·        "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah"    ( St. Matthew 16:4).

                 

                ·        "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

                ·        “ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

                ·        “The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here”.

                ·        “The queen of the South will rise in the judgment with this generating and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the Wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here” (St. Matthew 12: 39-42).

                 

                ·         "For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation" (St. Luke 11:30).

                 

                ·        “Jonah was in the belly of the whale; as Christ was in the tomb for three days” (Refrain of Psalm 150 during the Fast of Jonah).

                 

                ·        “But my Lord, deal with me, as You did with the people of Nineveh; those who repented, and You forgave them their sins” (Response of Matins Gospel on Monday).

                 

                ·        “Purify us, O Lord, from the deceit of the Sadducees; for we have grasped Your miracles, and have believed in Your Lordship” (Response of Matins Gospel on Thursday)

                 

                ·        " O God, who kept (Protected) Jonah, inside the whale, after being thrown into the deep; keep (Protect & Preserve) us according to Your power"  (Response of Matins Gospel on Tuesday, and Monday's Gospel Response of the Holy Liturgy).

                ·         “O God, absolve us, forgive us our many transgressions, as Good and Lover of mankind, have mercy on us according to Your great mercy” (Tuesday’s Gospel Response of the Holy Liturgy).

                 

                ·        “O our Lord, Jesus Christ, make in us for You, a temple of Your Holy Spirit, ever glorifying You” (Thursday’s Gospel Response fo the Holy Liturgy).

                 

                ·        “Through the prayers of the preacher of the people of Nineveh, Jonah the prophet, O Lord grant us the forgiveness of our sins” (The Hymn of the Intercessions).

                 

                ·        “God lefts the sins of the people, through The Sacrifice and the aroma of the incense” (Praxis Response)

                 

                4)     How Many days did the Ninevites fast?

                ·        Jonah the prophet was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, like the burial of our Savior.

                ·        The Lord, God sent him to the people of Nineveh; he preached to them according to His word, and they repented.

                ·        THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS, THEY WERE IN PRAYER AND FASTING;  WITH PAIN AND TEARS, WITH THE BIRDS AND ANIMALS.

                ·         God accepted their repentance, and had mercy on them; He lifted His anger away from them, and forgave them their sins.

                ·        We pray to You, O Merciful One, deal with us, who are sinners; like the people of Nineveh, have mercy on us according to Your Great Mercy.

                ·        For You are a merciful God, the Great in mercy; the Compassionate and Patient, God the Lover of mankind.

                ·        For you do not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he returns and lives; accept us and have mercy on us, forgive us our sins.

                ·        Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O preacher of the people of Nineveh, Jonah the Prophet, that He may forgive us our sins”

                (The Doxology for the Fast of Jonah)

                 

                 

                ·       “Come all you, who are blessed of My Father, come and inherit the Eternal Life” (Response of Matins Gospel on Wednesday).

                 

                ·       “BLESSED ARE YOU TRULY WITH YOUR GOOD FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, FOR YOU HAVE COME AND SAVED US, HAVE MERCY ON US” (Ending of Praxis Response).

                              

                           
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:54 PM
                Subject: [stmark_hymn_teachers] References

                Almost all my research has turned up the same thing.  First, the Hebrew available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek Septuagint.  All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.  Here are some references:
                 
                This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                 
                "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second century A.D."
                 
                Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older text.  That older text is different from the Masoretic.  In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it proves that the Masoretic is different.
                 
                "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible).    Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to the LXX translation." http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                 
                These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike. 
                 
                I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of the temple.  Please do not take my words out of context.  I only said that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                 
                Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea Scroll is incomplete.  Here is another source:
                "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."   http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                 
                Here is another source:
                "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT). Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                 
                 
                Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other translations.
                The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
                 
                Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity of Christ.
                 
                "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of it being the first substantial work ever translated into another language."
                "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the LXX as their Bible.    Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew’s attitude toward it.    After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. – Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."  http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them cursing the day of its appearance. "
                 
                Also, check the book reference that I posted before.  Fr. Athanasius sells the entire series.
                 
                I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine the Masoretic.  Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.  Might some of these sources be incorrect?  Yes.  Might they all be incorrect?  I don't think so.  Bottom line, with this much information, we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                 
                As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all.  You all want to hold on to our traditions dearly.  That is what makes us a special and rich church.  But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of.  We should not close the door so soon. 
                 
                Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my references.
                Peace,
                Dave


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

              • Michael Sleman
                Dave, Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts. Until the
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 23, 2005
                  Dave,

                  Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                  opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.

                  Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                  Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                  manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                  them before the time of Christ.

                  These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                  than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                  biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                  percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                  [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html%5d

                  The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                  was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that were
                  written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                  Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                  five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                  King Ptolemy."
                  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                  http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

                  Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have are
                  from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the Septuagint
                  from manuscripts that were fround.
                  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

                  Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                  different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts of
                  the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.

                  So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                  used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.

                  If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                  enough for me :)

                  --Michael

                  --- David Labib <davelabib@...> wrote:

                  > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the Hebrew
                  > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                  > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                  > Here are some references:
                  >
                  > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                  > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                  >
                  > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                  > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                  > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second
                  > century A.D."
                  > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                  >
                  > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                  > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                  > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                  > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                  >
                  > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                  > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                  > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to
                  > the LXX translation."
                  > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                  >
                  > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                  > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                  >
                  > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of
                  > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                  > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                  >
                  > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                  > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                  > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                  > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                  > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                  > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                  > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                  > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran
                  > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                  > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                  >
                  > Here is another source:
                  > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                  > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                  > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                  > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                  > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts
                  > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                  > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                  >
                  >
                  > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                  > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                  > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                  > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                  > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                  > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                  > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                  > translations.
                  > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                  > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
                  >
                  > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                  > of Christ.
                  >
                  > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of
                  > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                  > language."
                  >
                  > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the
                  > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                  > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew�s attitude toward it.
                  > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                  > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                  > centuries A.D. � Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                  > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                  >
                  > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                  > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                  > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                  > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD,
                  > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                  > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                  > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                  > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                  >
                  > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                  > sells the entire series.
                  >
                  > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                  > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                  > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                  > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                  > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                  > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                  > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                  >
                  > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                  > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                  > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                  > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                  > should not close the door so soon.
                  >
                  > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                  > references.
                  > Peace,
                  > Dave
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.




                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                  http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                • David Labib
                  Mike, I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a reference. I am also happy that you provided references, but in dealing with
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                    Mike,
                     
                    I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a reference.  I am also happy that you provided references, but in dealing with references, we must weigh all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
                     
                    First, there are many references that say the Dead Sea Scrolls more closely match the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic.  We cannot rely on one reference and ignore all the others.  Some of these references were sent in my previous email.
                     
                    Second, the Septuagint was not created after Christ.  This is inconsistent with all the sources I sent you, with history, with our tradition, and with our Bible.  The Bible mentions the story of Simeon the elder who was one of the 70 (or 72.)  Simeon was translating Isaiah, not just the Torah.  This happened hundreds of years before Christ.
                     
                    My objective is not to set the Septuagint as the official standard, but rather to clarify some misinformation about its credibility.  In the weighing of all this evidence, many would conclude that the Septuagint is a good source.
                     
                    Peace,
                    Dave
                     

                    Michael Sleman <sleman@...> wrote:

                    Dave,

                    Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                    opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.

                    Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                    Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                    manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                    them before the time of Christ.

                    These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                    than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                    biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                    percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                    [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html]

                    The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                    was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that were
                    written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                    Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                    five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                    King Ptolemy."
                    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                    http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

                    Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have are
                    from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the Septuagint
                    from manuscripts that were fround.
                    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

                    Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                    different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts of
                    the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.

                    So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                    used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.

                    If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                    enough for me :)

                    --Michael

                    --- David Labib wrote:

                    > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the Hebrew
                    > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                    > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                    > Here are some references:
                    >
                    > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                    > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                    >
                    > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                    > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                    > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second
                    > century A.D."
                    > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                    >
                    > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                    > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                    > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                    > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                    >
                    > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                    > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                    > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to
                    > the LXX translation."
                    > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                    >
                    > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                    > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                    >
                    > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of
                    > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                    > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                    >
                    > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                    > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                    > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                    > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                    > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                    > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                    > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                    > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran
                    > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                    > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                    >
                    > Here is another source:
                    > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                    > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                    > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                    > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                    > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts
                    > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                    > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                    >
                    >
                    > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                    > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                    > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                    > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                    > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                    > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                    > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                    > translations.
                    > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                    > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
                    >
                    > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                    > of Christ.
                    >
                    > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of
                    > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                    > language."
                    >
                    > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the
                    > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                    > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew�s attitude toward it.
                    > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                    > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                    > centuries A.D. � Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                    > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                    >
                    > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                    > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                    > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                    > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD,
                    > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                    > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                    > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                    > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                    >
                    > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                    > sells the entire series.
                    >
                    > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                    > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                    > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                    > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                    > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                    > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                    > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                    >
                    > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                    > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                    > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                    > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                    > should not close the door so soon.
                    >
                    > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                    > references.
                    > Peace,
                    > Dave
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                    > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.




                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                    http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                    Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
                    Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/m.VolB/TM
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.

                  • Kerolos Bernaba
                    I’m sorry guys but I seem to be lost in this discussion. The reason for this is because of the lack of Background information. Can anyone please provide me
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                      I�m sorry guys but I seem to be lost in this discussion. The reason for
                      this is because of the lack of Background information. Can anyone please
                      provide me and others with a brief lesson on the history of the bible and
                      other related topics to this discussion? This will definitely clear up a
                      lot of things. Terms like Masoretic, Suptuagint, and Dead see Scrolls are
                      beyond me. Or even some trustworthy reading material online. Thanks for you
                      time.

                      Pray for me

                      Kerolos
                    • Michael Sleman
                      Kerolos, Here s a very brief summary. Dead Sea Scrolls: Earliest biblical manuscripts ever found. Date from 3rd Century B.C. to 67 A.D. These were in Hebrew
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                        Kerolos,

                        Here's a very brief summary.

                        Dead Sea Scrolls:
                        Earliest biblical manuscripts ever found. Date from 3rd Century B.C. to
                        67 A.D. These were in Hebrew and support the Masoretic Texts.
                        http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html

                        Septuagint:
                        Translation started before the Birth of Christ of the 5 main books as
                        mentioned by the Hebrew historian Josephus and later St. Jerome. Then it
                        came to include the entire Old Testament. This was needed since Greek was
                        the international language at the time, much as English is now.
                        Early Greek translation of the Old Testament. Earlist manuscripts we now
                        have are from the fourth Century. There are several revisions of the
                        Septuagint.
                        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

                        Masoretic Texts:
                        Hebrew text of the Old Testament as preserved by the Jewish Scholars. The
                        earliest manuscripts date back to the 9th Century. Before the finding of
                        the Dead Sea Scrolls, these were known to be the earliest Hebrew
                        manuscripts that were found.
                        http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/masoretictext.htm

                        --- Kerolos Bernaba <kerolosb331@...> wrote:

                        >
                        > I�m sorry guys but I seem to be lost in this discussion. The reason
                        > for
                        > this is because of the lack of Background information. Can anyone
                        > please
                        > provide me and others with a brief lesson on the history of the bible
                        > and
                        > other related topics to this discussion? This will definitely clear up
                        > a
                        > lot of things. Terms like Masoretic, Suptuagint, and Dead see Scrolls
                        > are
                        > beyond me. Or even some trustworthy reading material online. Thanks for
                        > you
                        > time.
                        >
                        > Pray for me
                        >
                        > Kerolos
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        __________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
                        http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                      • Jan Youssef
                        this thread of emails has become like spam mail...i think discussions like these should be limited to websites where people can view them if they so
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                          this thread of emails has become like spam mail...i think discussions like these should be limited to websites where people can view them if they so please.....also, with people of the same rank (ie deacons) and no priesthood involvement in this discussion the authority of everyone's emails are questioned.   I am not a biblical scholar nor  do i proclaim myself as an authority in these topics, but i dont think email is a good way to have lengthy discussions about these topics at the very high risk of confusing the younger deacons and showing them that we are not in unity.........these emails are getting personal and not informative......

                          Mike,
                           
                          I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a reference.  I am also happy that you provided references, but in dealing with references, we must weigh all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
                           
                          First, there are many references that say the Dead Sea Scrolls more closely match the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic.  We cannot rely on one reference and ignore all the others.  Some of these references were sent in my previous email.
                           
                          Second, the Septuagint was not created after Christ.  This is inconsistent with all the sources I sent you, with history, with our tradition, and with our Bible.  The Bible mentions the story of Simeon the elder who was one of the 70 (or 72.)  Simeon was translating Isaiah, not just the Torah.  This happened hundreds of years before Christ.
                           
                          My objective is not to set the Septuagint as the official standard, but rather to clarify some misinformation about its credibility.  In the weighing of all this evidence, many would conclude that the Septuagint is a good source.
                           
                          Peace,
                          Dave
                           

                          Michael Sleman <sleman@...> wrote:

                          Dave,

                          Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                          opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.

                          Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                          Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                          manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                          them before the time of Christ.

                          These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                          than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                          biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                          percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                          [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html]

                          The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                          was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that were
                          written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                          Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                          five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                          King Ptolemy."
                          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                          http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

                          Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have are
                          from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the Septuagint
                          from manuscripts that were fround.
                          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

                          Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                          different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts of
                          the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.

                          So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                          used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.

                          If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                          enough for me :)

                          --Michael

                          --- David Labib wrote:

                          > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the Hebrew
                          > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                          > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                          > Here are some references:
                          >
                          > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                          > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                          >
                          > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                          > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                          > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second
                          > century A.D."
                          > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                          >
                          > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                          > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                          > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                          > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                          >
                          > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                          > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                          > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to
                          > the LXX translation."
                          > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                          >
                          > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                          > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                          >
                          > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of
                          > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                          > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                          >
                          > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                          > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                          > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                          > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                          > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                          > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                          > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                          > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran
                          > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                          > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                          >
                          > Here is another source:
                          > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                          > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                          > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                          > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                          > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts
                          > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                          > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                          >
                          >
                          > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                          > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                          > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                          > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                          > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                          > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                          > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                          > translations.
                          > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                          > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
                          >
                          > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                          > of Christ.
                          >
                          > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of
                          > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                          > language."
                          >
                          > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the
                          > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                          > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew�s attitude toward it.
                          > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                          > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                          > centuries A.D. � Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                          > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                          >
                          > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                          > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                          > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                          > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD,
                          > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                          > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                          > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                          > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                          >
                          > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                          > sells the entire series.
                          >
                          > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                          > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                          > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                          > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                          > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                          > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                          > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                          >
                          > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                          > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                          > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                          > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                          > should not close the door so soon.
                          >
                          > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                          > references.
                          > Peace,
                          > Dave
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Do you Yahoo!?
                          > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.




                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                          http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


                          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                          Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
                          Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
                          http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/m.VolB/TM
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/

                          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.

                        • Peter D. Sleman
                          I don t know if it s a bad thing at all... You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                            I don't know if it's a bad thing at all...
                            "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."  (John 5:39)
                             
                            Maybe email is not the best mean, but then again, who knows...Maybe this made someone open their Bible this week. I personally enjoyed it.
                            Peter
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:39 PM
                            Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] References

                            this thread of emails has become like spam mail...i think discussions like these should be limited to websites where people can view them if they so please.....also, with people of the same rank (ie deacons) and no priesthood involvement in this discussion the authority of everyone's emails are questioned.   I am not a biblical scholar nor  do i proclaim myself as an authority in these topics, but i dont think email is a good way to have lengthy discussions about these topics at the very high risk of confusing the younger deacons and showing them that we are not in unity.........these emails are getting personal and not informative......

                            Mike,
                             
                            I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a reference.  I am also happy that you provided references, but in dealing with references, we must weigh all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
                             
                            First, there are many references that say the Dead Sea Scrolls more closely match the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic.  We cannot rely on one reference and ignore all the others.  Some of these references were sent in my previous email.
                             
                            Second, the Septuagint was not created after Christ.  This is inconsistent with all the sources I sent you, with history, with our tradition, and with our Bible.  The Bible mentions the story of Simeon the elder who was one of the 70 (or 72.)  Simeon was translating Isaiah, not just the Torah.  This happened hundreds of years before Christ.
                             
                            My objective is not to set the Septuagint as the official standard, but rather to clarify some misinformation about its credibility.  In the weighing of all this evidence, many would conclude that the Septuagint is a good source.
                             
                            Peace,
                            Dave
                             

                            Michael Sleman <sleman@...> wrote:

                            Dave,

                            Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                            opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.

                            Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                            Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                            manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                            them before the time of Christ.

                            These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                            than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                            biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                            percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                            [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html]

                            The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                            was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that were
                            written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                            Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                            five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                            King Ptolemy."
                            http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                            http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

                            Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have are
                            from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the Septuagint
                            from manuscripts that were fround.
                            http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

                            Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                            different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts of
                            the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.

                            So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                            used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.

                            If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                            enough for me :)

                            --Michael

                            --- David Labib wrote:

                            > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the Hebrew
                            > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                            > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                            > Here are some references:
                            >
                            > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                            > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                            >
                            > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                            > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                            > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the second
                            > century A.D."
                            > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                            >
                            > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                            > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                            > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                            > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                            >
                            > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                            > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                            > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to
                            > the LXX translation."
                            > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                            >
                            > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                            > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                            >
                            > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction of
                            > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                            > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                            >
                            > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                            > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                            > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                            > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                            > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                            > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                            > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                            > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran
                            > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                            > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                            >
                            > Here is another source:
                            > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                            > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                            > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                            > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                            > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran texts
                            > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                            > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                            >
                            >
                            > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                            > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                            > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                            > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                            > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                            > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                            > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                            > translations.
                            > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                            > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint does!
                            >
                            > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                            > of Christ.
                            >
                            > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because of
                            > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                            > language."
                            >
                            > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over the
                            > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                            > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew’s attitude toward it.
                            > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                            > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                            > centuries A.D. – Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                            > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                            >
                            > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                            > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                            > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                            > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70 AD,
                            > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                            > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                            > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                            > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                            >
                            > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                            > sells the entire series.
                            >
                            > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                            > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                            > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                            > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                            > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                            > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                            > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                            >
                            > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                            > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                            > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                            > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                            > should not close the door so soon.
                            >
                            > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                            > references.
                            > Peace,
                            > Dave
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Do you Yahoo!?
                            > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.




                            __________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                            http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


                            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                            Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
                            Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
                            http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/m.VolB/TM
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.


                          • Michael Sleman
                            Agreed. I wrote my responses in fear that someone might have misunderstood from the discussion that the current English translations are incorrect
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                              Agreed.

                              I wrote my responses in fear that someone might have misunderstood from
                              the discussion that the current English translations are incorrect
                              translations. This is not true, it is actually quite miraculous how the
                              bible managed to not change throughout centuries. This is supported by
                              manuscripts and even by the existence of the different translations that
                              are essentially the same.

                              I'll be forwarding over a little pamphlet Abouna Abraam wrote regarding
                              the "Relevency of Modern Translations" that supports the validity of
                              Modern translations. I hope that clears things up for people in case
                              someone is confused.

                              We'll leave these historical discussions for group outings :)

                              In Christ,
                              -Michael

                              --- Jan Youssef <youssejs@...> wrote:

                              > this thread of emails has become like spam mail...i think discussions
                              > like these should be limited to websites where people can view them if
                              > they so please.....also, with people of the same rank (ie deacons) and
                              > no priesthood involvement in this discussion the authority of
                              > everyone's emails are questioned. I am not a biblical scholar nor do
                              > i proclaim myself as an authority in these topics, but i dont think
                              > email is a good way to have lengthy discussions about these topics at
                              > the very high risk of confusing the younger deacons and showing them
                              > that we are not in unity.........these emails are getting personal and
                              > not informative......
                              >
                              > Mike,
                              >
                              > I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a
                              > reference. I am also happy that you provided references, but in
                              > dealing with references, we must weigh all the evidence before reaching
                              > a conclusion.
                              >
                              > First, there are many references that say the Dead Sea Scrolls more
                              > closely match the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic. We cannot rely
                              > on one reference and ignore all the others. Some of these references
                              > were sent in my previous email.
                              >
                              > Second, the Septuagint was not created after Christ. This is
                              > inconsistent with all the sources I sent you, with history, with our
                              > tradition, and with our Bible. The Bible mentions the story of Simeon
                              > the elder who was one of the 70 (or 72.) Simeon was translating
                              > Isaiah, not just the Torah. This happened hundreds of years before
                              > Christ.
                              >
                              > My objective is not to set the Septuagint as the official standard, but
                              > rather to clarify some misinformation about its credibility. In the
                              > weighing of all this evidence, many would conclude that the Septuagint
                              > is a good source.
                              >
                              > Peace,
                              > Dave
                              >
                              >
                              > Michael Sleman <sleman@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Dave,
                              >
                              > Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                              > opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.
                              >
                              > Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                              > Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                              > manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                              > them before the time of Christ.
                              >
                              > These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                              > than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                              > biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                              > percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                              > [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html%5d
                              >
                              > The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                              > was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that
                              > were
                              > written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                              > Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                              > five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                              > King Ptolemy."
                              > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                              > http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/
                              >
                              > Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have
                              > are
                              > from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the
                              > Septuagint
                              > from manuscripts that were fround.
                              > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                              >
                              > Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                              > different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts
                              > of
                              > the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.
                              >
                              > So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                              > used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.
                              >
                              > If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                              > enough for me :)
                              >
                              > --Michael
                              >
                              > --- David Labib wrote:
                              >
                              > > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the
                              > Hebrew
                              > > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                              > > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                              > > Here are some references:
                              > >
                              > > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                              > > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                              > >
                              > > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                              > > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                              > > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the
                              > second
                              > > century A.D."
                              > > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                              > >
                              > > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                              > > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                              > > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                              > > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                              > >
                              > > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                              > > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                              > > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close
                              > to
                              > > the LXX translation."
                              > > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                              > >
                              > > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                              > > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                              > >
                              > > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction
                              > of
                              > > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                              > > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                              > >
                              > > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                              > > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                              > > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                              > > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                              > > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                              > > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                              > > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                              > > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed.
                              > Qumran
                              > > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                              > > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                              > >
                              > > Here is another source:
                              > > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                              > > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                              > > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                              > > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                              > > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran
                              > texts
                              > > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                              > > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                              > > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                              > > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                              > > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                              > > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                              > > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                              > > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                              > > translations.
                              > > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                              > > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint
                              > does!
                              > >
                              > > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                              > > of Christ.
                              > >
                              > > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because
                              > of
                              > > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                              > > language."
                              > >
                              > > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over
                              > the
                              > > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                              > > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew�s attitude toward it.
                              > > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                              > > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                              > > centuries A.D. � Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                              > > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                              > >
                              > > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                              > > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                              > > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                              > > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70
                              > AD,
                              > > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                              > > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                              > > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                              > > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                              > >
                              > > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                              > > sells the entire series.
                              > >
                              > > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                              > > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                              > > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                              > > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                              > > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                              > > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                              > > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                              > >
                              > > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                              > > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                              > > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                              > > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                              > > should not close the door so soon.
                              > >
                              > > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                              > > references.
                              > > Peace,
                              > > Dave
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ---------------------------------
                              > > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > __________________________________
                              > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                              > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
                              > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                              >
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >




                              __________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                              http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                            • Ihab Labib
                              This is very vital and crucial topic; through Christ s Grace, it will be addressed in details in the Friday meeting whenever God permits it to be. Many thanks
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 24, 2005
                                This is very vital and crucial topic; through Christ's Grace, it will be
                                addressed in details in the Friday meeting whenever God permits it to be.
                                Many thanks for bringing this topic to life, and may Christ our Lord
                                reward all who got involved in this. There seem to be a great need for us
                                all to know the truth and to know what is the Official Translation of the
                                Old Testament that has been approved by The Coptic Orthodox Church.

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Michael Sleman" <sleman@...>
                                To: <stmark_hymn_teachers@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:52 PM
                                Subject: Re: [stmark_hymn_teachers] References


                                >
                                > Agreed.
                                >
                                > I wrote my responses in fear that someone might have misunderstood from
                                > the discussion that the current English translations are incorrect
                                > translations. This is not true, it is actually quite miraculous how the
                                > bible managed to not change throughout centuries. This is supported by
                                > manuscripts and even by the existence of the different translations that
                                > are essentially the same.
                                >
                                > I'll be forwarding over a little pamphlet Abouna Abraam wrote regarding
                                > the "Relevency of Modern Translations" that supports the validity of
                                > Modern translations. I hope that clears things up for people in case
                                > someone is confused.
                                >
                                > We'll leave these historical discussions for group outings :)
                                >
                                > In Christ,
                                > -Michael
                                >
                                > --- Jan Youssef <youssejs@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >> this thread of emails has become like spam mail...i think discussions
                                >> like these should be limited to websites where people can view them if
                                >> they so please.....also, with people of the same rank (ie deacons) and
                                >> no priesthood involvement in this discussion the authority of
                                >> everyone's emails are questioned. I am not a biblical scholar nor do
                                >> i proclaim myself as an authority in these topics, but i dont think
                                >> email is a good way to have lengthy discussions about these topics at
                                >> the very high risk of confusing the younger deacons and showing them
                                >> that we are not in unity.........these emails are getting personal and
                                >> not informative......
                                >>
                                >> Mike,
                                >>
                                >> I am glad to hear that you have acknowledged the Septuagint as a
                                >> reference. I am also happy that you provided references, but in
                                >> dealing with references, we must weigh all the evidence before reaching
                                >> a conclusion.
                                >>
                                >> First, there are many references that say the Dead Sea Scrolls more
                                >> closely match the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic. We cannot rely
                                >> on one reference and ignore all the others. Some of these references
                                >> were sent in my previous email.
                                >>
                                >> Second, the Septuagint was not created after Christ. This is
                                >> inconsistent with all the sources I sent you, with history, with our
                                >> tradition, and with our Bible. The Bible mentions the story of Simeon
                                >> the elder who was one of the 70 (or 72.) Simeon was translating
                                >> Isaiah, not just the Torah. This happened hundreds of years before
                                >> Christ.
                                >>
                                >> My objective is not to set the Septuagint as the official standard, but
                                >> rather to clarify some misinformation about its credibility. In the
                                >> weighing of all this evidence, many would conclude that the Septuagint
                                >> is a good source.
                                >>
                                >> Peace,
                                >> Dave
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Michael Sleman <sleman@...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >> Dave,
                                >>
                                >> Just a final note in this long long discussion. It seems like a lot of
                                >> opinon is going into this discussion so let me just state some facts.
                                >>
                                >> Until the findings at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest
                                >> Masoretic Texts only dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have
                                >> manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic which puts
                                >> them before the time of Christ.
                                >>
                                >> These Dead Sea Scrolls agree extensively with the Masoretic Text more
                                >> than they do agree with the Septuagint. "About forty percent of the
                                >> biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic." and "Only five
                                >> percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint."
                                >> [http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html%5d
                                >>
                                >> The Septuagint itself as we know it today (the complete Old Testament)
                                >> was not created until after Christianity spread. The only parts that
                                >> were
                                >> written before the birth of Christ were the five books of Moses. "St.
                                >> Jerome says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the
                                >> five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to
                                >> King Ptolemy."
                                >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                                >> http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/
                                >>
                                >> Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that we have
                                >> are
                                >> from the fourth Century AD. There are several versions of the
                                >> Septuagint
                                >> from manuscripts that were fround.
                                >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
                                >>
                                >> Origen reproduced an interlienar version called the Hexapla with six
                                >> different translations. In his work, he added notes to indicate parts
                                >> of
                                >> the Septuagint that were not more inline with the Hebrew translations.
                                >>
                                >> So, Origen himself used several versions. The writers of KJV themselves
                                >> used the Septuagint in their translation along with the Masoretic Text.
                                >>
                                >> If Origen found it good to compare several versions, I guess it's good
                                >> enough for me :)
                                >>
                                >> --Michael
                                >>
                                >> --- David Labib wrote:
                                >>
                                >> > Almost all my research has turned up the same thing. First, the
                                >> Hebrew
                                >> > available now is not the Hebrew available prior to the Greek
                                >> > Septuagint. All websites date the Mosaretic after the Septuagint.
                                >> > Here are some references:
                                >> >
                                >> > This one tells you that the Septuagint was based on Hebrew different
                                >> > from the Masoretic which was completed in 2nd century:
                                >> >
                                >> > "The (Septuagint) translation posed problems later on because it was
                                >> > based on an earlier and different Hebrew text from the standard or
                                >> > Masoretic text of the rabbis, which was not finalized until the
                                >> second
                                >> > century A.D."
                                >> > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                                >> >
                                >> > Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls that you mentioned do refer to an older
                                >> > text. That older text is different from the Masoretic. In fact, the
                                >> > Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the authenticity of the Septuagint and it
                                >> > proves that the Masoretic is different.
                                >> >
                                >> > "In the LXX (Septuagint), 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the
                                >> > Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea
                                >> > Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close
                                >> to
                                >> > the LXX translation."
                                >> > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                                >> >
                                >> > These Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Masoretic is different and that
                                >> > the Greek Septuagint and the old Hebrew version are more alike.
                                >> >
                                >> > I never said that the scrolls were translated after the destruction
                                >> of
                                >> > the temple. Please do not take my words out of context. I only said
                                >> > that the Masoretic came after the destruction.
                                >> >
                                >> > Also, your statement that scholarly review shows that the Masoretic
                                >> > texts have preserved the original content written in the Dead Sea
                                >> > Scroll is incomplete. Here is another source:
                                >> > "The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard
                                >> > Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and
                                >> > many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts
                                >> > of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the
                                >> > Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed.
                                >> Qumran
                                >> > has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek."
                                >> > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                                >> >
                                >> > Here is another source:
                                >> > "By trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text which underlies the
                                >> > Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), we can tell that it differs in some
                                >> > points from the Masoretic text. For example, the LXX has a longer
                                >> > version of Daniel than does the Masoretic text (abbreviated MT).
                                >> > Another example, which shows that the LXX is closer to the Qumran
                                >> texts
                                >> > than to the MT is found in Exodus 1:5."
                                >> > http://www.theology.edu/b451.htm
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> > Look what else the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up:
                                >> > "A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are
                                >> > preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of
                                >> > these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first
                                >> > encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical
                                >> > Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches and
                                >> > were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other
                                >> > translations.
                                >> > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
                                >> > The Hebrew Masoretic doesn't have these books, but the Septuagint
                                >> does!
                                >> >
                                >> > Finally, here is more proof of the conspiracy to conceal the divinity
                                >> > of Christ.
                                >> >
                                >> > "The LXX had great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, because
                                >> of
                                >> > it being the first substantial work ever translated into another
                                >> > language."
                                >> >
                                >> > "The early Christian church, of the Greek-speaking world took over
                                >> the
                                >> > LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus
                                >> > was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jew's attitude toward it.
                                >> > After A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a
                                >> > Christian book, whose oldest copies are from the fourth and fifth
                                >> > centuries A.D. - Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus."
                                >> > http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm
                                >> >
                                >> > "The Jews of Alexandria had originally produced the LXX, beginning
                                >> > around 280 BC, but when the Christians started using it to prove that
                                >> > Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (whom they had rejected), and especially
                                >> > after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem in 70
                                >> AD,
                                >> > the Rabbis saw the need to define their canon, decide on a standard
                                >> > Hebrew text, and dump the use of the LXX completely, some of them
                                >> > cursing the day of its appearance. "
                                >> > http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/LXXmenu.htm
                                >> >
                                >> > Also, check the book reference that I posted before. Fr. Athanasius
                                >> > sells the entire series.
                                >> >
                                >> > I hope this gives you a general idea that we should not downplay the
                                >> > role of the Septuagint and, at the same time, we should not enshrine
                                >> > the Masoretic. Also, I do not send you info unless I have sources.
                                >> > Might some of these sources be incorrect? Yes. Might they all be
                                >> > incorrect? I don't think so. Bottom line, with this much information,
                                >> > we should not downplay the role of the Septuagint and we should (as I
                                >> > said before) use multiple resources when studying the Bible.
                                >> >
                                >> > As orthodox, I am glad to be surrounded by you all. You all want to
                                >> > hold on to our traditions dearly. That is what makes us a special and
                                >> > rich church. But, here, with the advancement in technology, we have
                                >> > access to information that our fathers would have only dreamed of. We
                                >> > should not close the door so soon.
                                >> >
                                >> > Sorry for the long email, but that is the only way to list my
                                >> > references.
                                >> > Peace,
                                >> > Dave
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> > ---------------------------------
                                >> > Do you Yahoo!?
                                >> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> __________________________________
                                >> Do you Yahoo!?
                                >> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                                >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> ---------------------------------
                                >> Do you Yahoo!?
                                >> Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
                                >> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> ---------------------------------
                                >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >>
                                >> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stmark_hymn_teachers/
                                >>
                                >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                >> stmark_hymn_teachers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >>
                                >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > __________________________________
                                > Do you Yahoo!?
                                > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                                > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.