Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the LXX over 350 times. There is no proof they ever quoted from the Aramaic text. The couple of times attributed to the Babel Aramaic text, can be traced instead to the ancient Paleo Hebrew which the Aramaic may have gotten close to correct in translation. My point is, Jesus did not use the Chaldee Aramaic "Qahal" and neither did the Apostles. The Greek Ekklesia is what they used. The use of the word "church" to describe where the Ekklesia assembled and to describe the members as a collective group, is totaly acceptable. If it was not for the LXX we would call no assembly place a CHURCH. We would be calling our meeting places a synagogue. For this is what the Jews adapted "qahal" to be. I will stick to Jesus and the Apostles. I do not find any comfort in using Jewish words, meanings, or terms they never used.
So you think Jesus spoke Greek? You do realize the LXX is a translation of Hebrew/Aramaic, riggggght?
RE: Assembly
by Michael lewis - 2/06/17 8:51 AM
This was very enlightening. I must get me an LXX . thank you for sharing the article with us
RE:Assembly
by Victoria - 8/16/18 11:37 AM
For a heart that is truly searching for God's heart as He returning soon for His bride, this article and your picking at each other over words was of no use to me... I have been told that people in our
"Church" want to start following the "Ekklesia" system of worship...
is about a title or Christ's heart for His people?
RE:Assembly
by ted bruckner - 8/17/19 6:06 PM
Good knowledge you shared. thanks. though, i have throughly made an inventory and copied out all but the repetious and three-four word quotations and my count of direct quotations is 250. 350 for a number woulld be including references and indirect quotations to particular verses
RE:Assembly
by ted bruckner - 8/17/19 6:41 PM
for those who want a Septuagint, the rabbis are still fighting against it and we have only one English translation , maybe two, to speak of, the first English trans., Thompson's 1800 AD that doesn't have the Apocrypha; it was corrupted with MT in the 1950 edited reprint. The NETS trans. (A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title) is based on the
NRSV and all those other Gk. trans.s are all based on the MT: NETS is a fake. The translators group picture that's on the main-page of their website says a lot; NETS is free to download, (naturally, because they want people to continue ingesting the Masoretic falsifications and mutilations that discredit not only Christ, but God , Wisdom, man, and people in the Scripture) The Brenton trans. is THE SEPTUAGINT TO READ. the reprint by Hendrickson Co. is the one for those who only have 30 bucks to spend and don't want to have a 30 buck interlinear hardcover Sept. with strong's numbers) apostolic bible ((good for reference only for the numbers)) that is good to have with a 20 buck Septuagint, the best reprint of Michael Johnson's LXX2012 digital copy of Brenton's trans. that upgraded Middle English and British English spellings to Modern American English spellings and “Thou, thee, thine, mine†to “You, my†and has the Brenton footnotes It's in a softcover with 3 angels on the cover Ex-Fontibus Company the print-size is the same size as the Brenton reprint and the book is almost the same size because they used thicker paper. Some say the Orthodox Study Bible is good. It probably is alright as far as the translation goes but it is missing 1/2 of a substantial verse Isiah 22:22
6 Comments for Assembly
Read all 47 comments »
Assembly
by Pastor G. Reckart - 11/01/12 9:29 AM5 Replies: Post a Reply
RE: Assembly
by Barney - 2/01/14 12:22 PMRE: Assembly
by Michael lewis - 2/06/17 8:51 AMRE:Assembly
by Victoria - 8/16/18 11:37 AMRE:Assembly
by ted bruckner - 8/17/19 6:06 PMRE:Assembly
by ted bruckner - 8/17/19 6:41 PMRead all 47 comments »
Comment on Assembly