Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study The word versus the story

The Septuagint and the traditional Masoretic both disagree with today's CT versions but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both agree with these earliest versions, so why do the post-Westcott/Hort translators ADD the word "son" in Exodus 11 and 12?

During the time of Hatsheput (1482 -1425 B.C.), her husband Thutmoses II (Moses Pharaoh), and her daughter (their first born, Neferure), both died leaving her (a woman), the Pharaoh of Egypt. Her step son (who was also her nephew by Thutmoses and another lesser wife) acted as co-regentduring this time. He became Pharaoh after her passing and made the empire great once again.

Now in this historical fact the Critics lauded about. “Look here” they exclaimed “the Pharoah’s first born was a girl not a boy…thus no firstborn son!” But where did they get that “firstborn son” thing? It is not in the Bible!!! Cecil B. DeMil?

Both the LXX and the Pre-JPS (traditional) Masoretic only say the firstborn (which Biblically means ‘the one which opens the womb’). In the case of Pharaoh Thutmoses II his first born was female and indeed his daughter passed right around the time the Bible gives for the Exodus.

1 Kings 6:5And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.”

970-966 B.C. (Temple building begins) + 480 years = 1450-1446 B.C.

Other scholars have noted “In Psalm 136:15, we find that God “overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea." The Hebrew word translated here as "overthrew" is na'ar, also found in Exodus 14:27. It does not mean "to drown" or "to toss or tumble about as in the water" as some have attempted to assert. It simply means "shook off" as is mentioned in the margins of many Bibles(seeBrown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon). (Nehemiah 5:13 illustrates how na'ar should be translated: "Then I shook out the fold of my garment. . . .") Therefore, these verses simply say that God shook off the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, from their pursuit of the Israelites. These scriptures say nothing of who was drowned.

In Exodus 14:28, the waters cover "all the army of Pharaoh," but Pharaoh himself is not mentioned. Exodus 15:19 supports this: "For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them." Naturally, the horses and horsemen of Egypt were considered to be Pharaoh's. But this verse does not say that Pharaoh's personal horse (or chariot), or that Pharaoh himself, drowned in the sea.

This is significant because the death of such an important person would almost certainly have been given special note in the Bible. The Old Testament contains many clear references to the deaths of enemy kings, most of them much less important than this pharaoh. Archaeology proves that Amenhotep II, if he is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, ruled for about 22 more years.”

Comments? Thought? Where do we get "son" from...I am actually asking...???

In His love

Brother Paul
 
Wiki says

Amenemhat
was a prince of the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt; the son of Pharaoh Thutmose III.[1]

He was the eldest son and appointed heir of the pharaoh.[1] It is possible that his mother was Queen Satiah,[2] but it has also been proposed that Neferure — the daughter of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II was married to Thutmose III. Although Neferure is identified several times as the royal wife of Thutmose III while he was the co-regent of Hatshepsut, who was serving as pharaoh, some authors think it is less likely that Neferure was the mother of Amenemhat.[3]

The name of Amenemhat was mentioned on an inscription in the Karnak Temple in the 24th year, shortly after the death of Hatshepsut and the subsequent assumption of his father to pharaoh; he was appointed to “Overseer of the Cattle”[4] – quite an unusual title for a prince[5] – in that year. He also is depicted in the Theban tomb of his tutor, Min, Mayor of Thinis.[1]

Amenemhat predeceased his father, who ruled for more than thirty years after Hatshepsut died

Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson (2004, p.137)
 
What is a CT version? Please give an example if need be.

A CT version is a version based on the Critical Text of either the Nestle or Westcott and Hort versions of the Greek New Testament...each took what they selected (according to their opinion) from among the 5% of Biblical samples that vehemently disagree with one another (predominately from the heavily edited and most disagreeable Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...you cannot go four lines between them without a discrepancy...each adds to and takes away from in different places) and created a hodge-podge or eclectic final product and call it The Greek New Testament...each pretty much ignored the other 95% of our early biblical samples which only vary a percent of two here or there based mostly on spelling errors. Please note that the modern CT versions also ALL disagree with one another...(CEV, NIV, NRSV, etc...)

However the point I was making was that though the modern CT versions "disagree", the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually do agree with the LXX and Masoretic on this point (here is where you see a great example of their cut and paste, add to/take away, according to their opinion approach to the Holy Scriptures. Very cavalier of them IMO...

For example...the NRSV is so politically correcticised that it has "orphans" (to remove fatherless...too patriarchal in their opinion) being snatched from their mother's breasts...since when do orphans have mothers?
 
Last edited:
A CT version is a version based on the Critical Text of either the Nestle or Westcott and Hort versions of the Greek New Testament...each took what they selected (according to their opinion) from among the 5% of Biblical samples that vehemently disagree with one another (predominately from the heavily edited and most disagreeable Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...you cannot go four lines between them without a discrepancy...each adds to and takes away from in different places) and created a hodge-podge or eclectic final product and call it The Greek New Testament...each pretty much ignored the other 95% of our early biblical samples which only vary a percent of two here or there based mostly on spelling errors. Please note that the modern CT versions also ALL disagree with one another...(CEV, NIV, NRSV, etc...)

However the point I was making was that though the modern CT versions "disagree", the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually do agree with the LXX and Masoretic on this point (here is where you see a great example of their cut and paste, add to/take away, according to their opinion approach to the Holy Scriptures. Very cavalier of them IMO...

For example...the NRSV is so politically correcticised that it has "orphans" (to remove fatherless...too patriarchal in their opinion) being snatched from their mother's breasts...since when do orphans have mothers?

I am not knowledgeable in this area so I can't commit about most of what you say except for the last paragraph.
You say changing 'fatherless' to 'orphans' is to make it 'less' patriarchal. I see it just the opposite. By changing it to 'orphans' is like saying that even though they still have their mother they are parentless. She doesn't count as a parent only the father counted so therefore they are orphans.
 
I would think the word son only had a meaning concerning the firstborn as being males as they were and would become the army of Pharaoh set out to destroy Israel or as in Exodus 11:5 the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne would be the heir to take over the throne one day and continue in the persecutions.

Psalms 136:15: 14:27 God overthrew Pharaoh's power by defeating his army.

Nehemiah 5:13 Nehemiah asked God to shake out His people or to show them the bondage they were allowing themselves to get into as they were turning on each other because of the dearth.

Exodus 15:19 Pharaoh would probably not have went out with his army, but the single word horse could mean all his horses as in all his chariots.
 
Back
Top