SavedOnebyGrace Posted October 31, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,059 Content Per Day: 14.04 Reputation: 5,193 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2021 I came across the following paper in my Bible research. The PDF is free for download, about 15 pages. There's a fuller PDF Package that the website is offering for sale. The free online viewable PDF should be enough for most people. MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5 https://0.academia-photos.com/54305046/14324900/19364401/s65_henry_b.smith_jr.jpg Henry B. Smith Jr. 2018, Bible and Spade Genesis 1-11,Primeval History, Biblical Chronology In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports the originality of the longer primeval chronology found (mostly) in the LXX. Thus far, the research has led to the conclusion that the MT’s primeval chronology was deliberately reduced in the post 70 AD period by 1250 years. One of ... Source: Link to Paper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted October 31, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.94 Reputation: 7,798 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2021 Yes. the 'new' MT was a rewrite of the older Hebrew script to better conform to 'modern' Jewish dogma. Fortunately, the Qumran scholars kept most of them intact that later 'experts' could not refer to. God's way of handling errors that crept into the 'church'. Most in the pews will be kept in the dark about all this so I encourage all to review history and learn for yourself. It is up to the individual believer to study well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: Yes. the 'new' MT was a rewrite of the older Hebrew script to better conform to 'modern' Jewish dogma. Fortunately, the Qumran scholars kept most of them intact that later 'experts' could not refer to. God's way of handling errors that crept into the 'church'. Most in the pews will be kept in the dark about all this so I encourage all to review history and learn for yourself. It is up to the individual believer to study well. It is my belief that too little scholarly work has been done with the Dead Sea Scrolls which, at least to me, have been invaluable in the following areas: Where complete or nearly complete books have been found, they have ratified the accuracy of the Old Testament. Even fragments have proven to be valuable. This proves prophecies were written before the events. [The Book of Daniel is a good example.] Because the Qumran writers were not the Pharisees and Sadducees, they were not bound by their theological dictates and additions to The Law. That errors crept into the Church at an early age, I agree with you on the importance of a Church history review to understand context. Ultimately, it is as you said "It is up to the individual believer to study well." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts