|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 11, 2007 13:33:00 GMT -5
I just about posted this on the thread I'm pulling RevK's quote from, but thought it would be better to bring it over here. Isaiah 53 from the Septuagint says, “1 O Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We brought a report as of a child before Him; He is a root in a thirsty land; He has no form, nor comeliness; and we saw Him, but He had no form nor beauty. 3 But His appearance was without honor, and inferior to that of the sons of men; He was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for His face has turned from us; He was dishonored, and not esteemed. 4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us; yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. 5 But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has wandered in his way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins. 7 And He, because of His affliction, opened not His mouth; He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth. 8 In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken away from the earth; because of the iniquities of My people He was led to death. 9 And I will give the wicked for His burial and the rich for His death; for He practiced no iniquity, nor craft with His mouth. 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge Him from His stroke. If you give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed; 11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and He shall bear their sins. 12 Therefore He shall inherit many, and He shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because His soul was delivered to death; and He was numbered among the transgressors; and He bore the sins of many, and was delivered up because of their transgressions.” -This is MUCH different then the Isaiah 53 found in modern translations. This gives no indication that God is the one who beat, bruised and crucified Christ. God didn’t unleash His wrath on His Son…it wasn’t Satan who unleashed his wrath upon Jesus, our Savior! How do you believe Mat 5:18 should be translated? You would have to reject the common translation of it if you believe the Septuagint should be our backing text. The reason I ask is because if "one jot or one tittle" is correct, it shows that Jesus when thinking of the Law, thought of it in Hebrew- not Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 11, 2007 17:28:54 GMT -5
I understand what you mean by Matthew 5:18 Josh and have thought about that myself...HOWEVER, what would that mean for our N.T. Greek Text then? Does God mean that He won't keep that perfect based on your interpretation of Matthew 5:18? I think it is possible that the reason Jesus said this was because He was talking to the Jewish people. Besides, (I am not for sure about this since I don't have the Greek Text of Matthew 5:18 before me), I don't think Jesus literally said a jot or tittle. I could be wrong, but I think the more literal rendering of Matthew 5:18 would be, "Not the least stroke of a pen nor the smallest letter." A tittle is literally the least stroke of a pen in Hebrew...as it is the only distinguishing factor between a Hebrew Resh (English-R) and Hebrew Daleth (English-D). The Jot is also the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. How do you explain the discrepancy between the O.T. quotes in the N.T. and the actual references in our modern N.T.? I probably won't respond to this again until next week. God Bless Josh...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 11, 2007 18:34:47 GMT -5
You are correct, you can translate that differently. The translators have added their interpretation to it. I agree with them, but I thought it would be a good way to start off the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 11, 2007 18:36:49 GMT -5
hmm.. You will have to expand on that. I don't see how believing that we should use Hebrew texts for our OT effects the Greek manuscripts of the new. Unless you are saying that would make the quotes from the OT misquotes or something.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 14, 2007 19:51:02 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't very clear on that point Josh. What I was saying is that since the N.T. was originally written in Greek and Matthew 5:18 is translated as "jot and tittle" in certain translations...and since "jot and tittle" are Hebrew, does that mean that Jesus was saying that the N.T. wasn't inspired either? It's really not that big of a point as it seems obvious to me that the translators took their own liberty to translate the Greek words in Matthew 5:18 as "jot and tittle." I could be wrong, but I doubt that there are Greek words that are equivalent to the Hebrew letter "jot" and the Hebrew mark of a "tittle"...
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Oct 16, 2007 14:33:08 GMT -5
if I may interject?....
There is credible evidence, to me at least, that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew...not Greek.
One thing is certain, however, and that none of the jots or tittles are contained in any of the English translations, because, presumably, they didn't know what they meant, nor what significance they had.
Jot and tittle do not mean, as is often declared, " "Not the least stroke of a pen nor the smallest letter." A tittle is literally the least stroke of a pen in Hebrew..."
These markings, jots or dots above certain letters in the Hebrew, sometimes enlarged letters or letters made smaller than the others in the orignal text, all had meaning and were meant to draw attention to the significance of what was being taught when they appear. I believe that there are more than 100 jots and tittles contained within the original scrolls, and were faithfully copied by the scribes for a long time.
I'm running out of my alotted time here at the library, but this may serve to help understand further our need of the Holy Spirit, rather than men, to instruct us in the one true faith!
peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 18, 2007 5:14:54 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is with the Septuagint. It is not a good underlying text (at least deemed so by most Christians throughout history).
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 18, 2007 8:54:00 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is with the Septuagint. It is not a good underlying text (at least deemed so by most Christians throughout history). Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 18, 2007 10:39:53 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is with the Septuagint. It is not a good underlying text (at least deemed so by most Christians throughout history). Why not? I have the same question...usually the only people that say that are KJVO people...at least they are the only ones I have heard it from...
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 18, 2007 11:54:43 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is with the Septuagint. It is not a good underlying text (at least deemed so by most Christians throughout history). Why not? That’s a very good question…I’m glad you asked. ;D First, according to the Bible, the Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying God's word. The word oracle means revelation, prophecy, canon, or edict. It was unto the Jew, that the Old Testament revelation and canon were committed. This is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take from the word of God. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2). "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:6). Since the Septuagint is a Greek text, it’s highly unlikely the Jews/Apostles/Early Christians would be following it. For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was the Septuagint. The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew. Since the international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew. This discovery confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Christ. Like you stated in Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18). It is interesting that He used the words jot and tittle. In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937). The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Christ were reading from a Greek Old Testament. Further, Jesus says in Luke 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." . This statement attests that Christ used the Hebrew canon of scripture. The order of books found in our Old Testament run from Genesis to Malachi. The Greek LXX has the same order but adds additional books (the Apocrypha). The Hebrew canon, while containing the same books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently. The Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the middle and not the end as in our Old Testament. We know that Abel was killed by his brother according to Genesis 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20- 22. Thus showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Able was the first martyr of the OT history. Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p. 1049). With these things in mind, we can reasonably say a better text was a Hebrew text (Received Text). Sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 18, 2007 13:05:46 GMT -5
What I would think Rev, or someone who supports the Sept. being our backing text is that "jot and tittle" is an interpretation of the words in Greek- not a literal translation.
I strict translation would be something like "one iota or one little horn (or point)." Although I agree with the KJV on what it is referring to.
Or you could say he wasn't even referring to it in a cannon sense, but in a historical time line. Saying the Abel was the first to be killed in scripture and Zacharias was the last. I don't know, could that be accurate?
To me, this is a large point. If you believe the Sept. is our backing text, you cannot take away from it. If you do reject the apocrypha, on what basis are you doing it?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 18, 2007 13:59:11 GMT -5
Just so you know, this isn't that big of a thing for me. I still use my NKJV Bible which has the O.T. translated from the Hebrew...anyway, I still think that this question stands:
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 18, 2007 14:12:53 GMT -5
I think I already answered this is a past thread about this issue...
I definitely don't think that the Jews lost their use of the Hebrew language during their time. That has nothing to do with why I would rather have my English O.T. translated from the Greek Septuagint rather then from the Hebrew. Here are the main reasons that I want to use the Septuagint:
1) The exact matching of O.T. quotes found in the N.T. by Jesus and the apostles 2) The use of the Septuagint in the Early Church 3) I believe it is the oldest version of the O.T. that we have
Going back to the jot and tittle thing...that is something that is imposed upon what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 by the translators. The book of Matthew was originally written in Greek. The Greek doesn't say "jot or tittle." Here are the words from the Greek:
-Translated as "jot" (in some versions)= Greek iota = English smallest letter.
-Translated as "tittle" (in some versions)= Greek keraia = English smallest part of letter.
So, Matthew 5:18 does not give any back-up for a Hebrew O.T. text as superior to a Greek O.T. text. UNLESS, of course, you want to hold that the autograph (original) Matthew was written in Hebrew. Contrary to the opinions of some, I have yet to see any evidence of this...and usually the only ones who say this is true are the KJVO brothers...
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 18, 2007 14:17:53 GMT -5
Just so you know, this isn't that big of a thing for me. I still use my NKJV Bible which has the O.T. translated from the Hebrew...anyway, I still think that this question stands: In response to your using the NKJV, if I recall correctly, its Old Testament text is based on the same family line of texts as the Septuagint (Alexandrian). I think it's the Ben Asher BHS text...anyway... Granted, I came in late on this discussion, but I still think the explanation is the bad underlying text. There are absolutely no known manuscripts (that I am aware of) pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus quoted a Greek Old Testament. Quotations by Jesus in the New Testament may match readings in the Septuagint, because the underlying New Testament Greek texts are from the exact same bad fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscript (ie. the Septuagint). Most likely Origen was the one to make the changes. According to the colophon (end note) on the end of the Sinaiticus MSS, the changes in reading came from Origen’s Hexapla. Others likely did also. Even church historians like Jerome, Hort, and Carson, agree that this is probably true. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Bible versions which rely on the Septuagint for their underlying text in the New and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Origen (and Eusebius). Origen may have edited both the Old and New Testaments to suit his Gnostic leanings utilizing his Hexapla (which is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament text). There are even more serious problems with the Septuagint: Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three of which were Gnostics. As I mentioned previously, it is also my understanding that the Septuagint contains the apocryphal books such as: Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. To my knowledge, Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews have traditionally rejected it also (I understand it may have some historical value, but they are not Scripture). And worse, these bad manuscripts contain these false books WITHIN the Old Testament text itself.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 18, 2007 14:45:45 GMT -5
Maybe I am missing something here or just not understanding what you are saying brother...the Septuagint, in my understanding was written just after 300 B.C. Origen was 500-600 years later. How could he have impacted the Septuagint in any way?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 18, 2007 15:13:58 GMT -5
Maybe I am missing something here or just not understanding what you are saying brother...the Septuagint, in my understanding was written just after 300 B.C. Origen was 500-600 years later. How could he have impacted the Septuagint in any way? Good question. Basically, I don't think there is any viable evidence that the Septuagint was that early. Even if there was, it could be reasonable to speculate that he did edited it. I understand most scholars are nearly unanimous that the LXX was written circa 200 B.C. The problem is, there is no factual reason or credible evidence for believing this date. Most of those same scholars will agree or concede that the descriptions that we have for the compilation of the LXX are mythological. The LXX text evidence indicates the LXX to, more than likely, be a product of Origen. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than that of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala. Paul Kahle (the famous O.T. scholar who worked on the Biblica Hebraica) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint cannot be traced back to one archtype. The only evidence I am aware of is the "Letter of Aristeas". This is the sole evidence for the existence of this text. (And it's my understanding that that letter is highly questioned) I am not aware of any Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed. When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars usually point to Origen's Hexapla.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 19, 2007 11:23:47 GMT -5
Brother Peter...I don't understand how what you are saying about the Septuagint could be true. What are your sources? Please understand that I am not accusing you of lying or that I don't trust you. It's just that what you are saying goes totally against everything I have ever read or heard about the Septuagint...and I have never heard anyone say these things. If I may ask...are you KJVO? Just curious... From what I have studied, the Early Church Fathers read the O.T. in Greek...that is the Early Church Fathers before Origen. If that's true then Origen couldn't have made the Septuagint. And as far as I know, ALL of the English translations that we have, have O.T. that come from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Also, can you show that the Septuagint has gnostic leanings in it? Also, can you show or explain why we have a discrepancy between the O.T quotes in the N.T. and the O.T. references to those quotes? What were the N.T. writers quoting from? God Bless you brother...
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 19, 2007 14:05:21 GMT -5
OK Brother, I’ll do my best to answer your questions. Regarding the KJVO question, the simple answer is yes, probably… but I don’t know exactly what you mean by KJVO (not trying to be difficult, just trying to be honest). You stated: “From what I have studied, the Early Church Fathers read the O.T. in Greek...that is the Early Church Fathers before Origen.” Just for the sake of our discussion, let’s agree that the Early Church Fathers read the O.T. in Greek (before Origen). It is my understanding that there are NO Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament written before the time of Christ. SAVE one; a minute scrap dated at 150 BC (Ryland's Papyrus, #458, AKA: P-52). (look here for reference: www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html)I believe it contains a small portion of John 13. No more. No less. Basically stated, the “Septuagint” is not a real, complete, manuscript. I think when scholars refer to the “Septuagint” they are referring to nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapla. Or, which is more likely, I believe they are referring to certain other manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). I am pretty sure these Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint (as I have not found any evidence of autographs to support this text (the Septuagint). In fact, in his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same. If I am missing any of the manuscripts, please let me know what they are! I just can't find them. I've been looking. You also stated: “And as far as I know, ALL of the English translations that we have, have O.T. that come from the Hebrew, not the Greek.” That’s not entirely true. Read the front of your NKJV: “For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in footnotes.” Taken from the Preface to the New King James Version BTW who deems what is "significant" and what isn't. I know, I know, they are still BASED on the "Hebrew". But the Hebrew text they are using comes from the same line as the Septuagint (that is a whole different story). Sorry brother I have to go for now….taking my boy camping this weekend. Be back Sunday. I look forward to addressing your other questions. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 19, 2007 15:25:56 GMT -5
Notice that it says that the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate were "consulted"...and notice that it says "the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25."
So, like I said, the text used or behind the English versions is the Hebrew. I am not in disagreement with you in regards to the Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian Texts. I like the Textus Receptus a whole lot better.
I guess that I can see where you are coming from now that I know you are KJVO...which means King James Version Only. So where did you get your facts from about the Septuagint, because everyone I listen to and everywhere I read says that it dates back to to 3rd Century B.C.?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 22, 2007 18:21:26 GMT -5
So where did you get your facts from about the Septuagint, because everyone I listen to and everywhere I read says that it dates back to to 3rd Century B.C.? All I have done is simply researched the known available texts and looked for the earliest possible dates (ie. the oldest manuscripts). I have been using the site previously mentioned (here it is again: www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ ) I don't think the guy is a Christian, but I am not sure. If you know of a better site, please let me know. I too have heard A LOT about the Septuagint. But once I started looking into it's history myself, I just can't find the evidence to support it's claims (with the exception of the very questionable "Letter of Aristeas"). Another interesting observation I made while researching this is the fact that scholars have claimed that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. But this argument can't be correct. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written!
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 22, 2007 19:05:32 GMT -5
From what I have studied, the Early Church Fathers read the O.T. in Greek...that is the Early Church Fathers before Origen. The KJV Translators actually had something to say about the "Septuagint": Regarding the LXX, the translators agree that there are problems with this translation but say the following: "The translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God. " I guess I would respond that the KJV translators say that because many people - in their day - were referring to the LXX but no one was defining what was meant by the term "Septuagint". For a long time, scholars refused to elaborate on this, and then it became clear what the LXX text was: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. The Septuagint that the Early Church was presumed to have used by the KJV Translators - was probably not the same identical bad Greek Manuscripts that is called the Septuagint today. The Septuagint MAY have existed, but what is given to us today – as the Septuagint - is the corrupted Bible of Origen, and that is what is to be found in Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Also, can you show that the Septuagint has gnostic leanings in it? Yes, primarily because it contains all the apocryphal books. It did not differentiate between "scripture" and the apocryphal writings. Another good source would be: The Gnostics: Identifying an Early Christian Cult By Alastair H.B. Logan Also, can you show or explain why we have a discrepancy between the O.T quotes in the N.T. and the O.T. references to those quotes? What were the N.T. writers quoting from? I'm sorry brother. I need some examples. I don't know that I follow you on this one. Warm Regards, Peter
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Oct 23, 2007 10:58:35 GMT -5
rev, I think, wrote: I say it too, though I wouldn't classify myself as KJVO! I'm appreciating your contributions Peter! peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 23, 2007 11:44:51 GMT -5
I say it too, though I wouldn't classify myself as KJVO! I'm appreciating your contributions Peter! peace, dmatic Thank you. I'm sorry to get you guys "off the beaten path".
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Oct 24, 2007 13:56:05 GMT -5
No need to apologize to me....I've been accused since grade school of leaving the "beaten path"! But Jesus said that not many would find the path that leads to life.....few there be, so the path probably isn't too beaten down anyway! I copied about twelve pages from your reference site, to read later...LORD willing! peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Oct 24, 2007 17:07:37 GMT -5
Peter, Do I remember seeing that you believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic?
Also, are you aware , or hve you heard that "jot and tittle" in Hebrew does not mean the smallest letter or stroke of a pen thaT MANY eNGLISH VERSIONS BELIEVE IT IS?
PEACE, DMATIC
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Oct 25, 2007 12:54:06 GMT -5
Peter, Do I remember seeing that you believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? No, that was not me brother. Also, are you aware , or hve you heard that "jot and tittle" in Hebrew does not mean the smallest letter or stroke of a pen thaT MANY eNGLISH VERSIONS BELIEVE IT IS? No, I have not heard that before. I have always been under the impression that that is exactly what Jesus was referring to. Peter
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Nov 2, 2007 16:44:10 GMT -5
Peter, I apologize for not responding sooner, but have been very busy lately...
According to my understanding the jots and tittles of scripture are not contained in the English versions of the Bible because translators did not know what they meant. They are in the Hebrew versions of the Bible, those that have been faithfully copied by the scribes throughout the years since they were penned.
It is a fascinating study, but the jots and tittles were used by the writers to convey some special attention to a letter or verse or meaning of the scripture. Often there would be dots above a particular letter, that were not germane (if that's the word) to the written language. "Why were they put there?" the reader was to ask? They were meant to draw attention to a particular thing. Sometimes a letter was either enlarged in the "sentence" or sometimes a letter was made smaller than the rest of the text. These indications have meaning that most do not know, because they do not know why they are there and since they don't know what they mean, many assume that they have no meaning!
Y'Shua (Jesus) was pointing out that these particulars to the texts do have meaning, even though most do not know what they mean! The Law and Prophets would not pass away until all were fulfillied! Not even the jots or the tittles, (and I understand that there are over one hundred jots and titles in the Hebrew), would pass until all was fulfilled!
Y'Shua's teaching here confounds many because they don't want to believe the truth, that the commandments of God have not passed away! They are still to be kept!
Peace, dmatic
|
|