Dr. Brown takes your calls and questions live from New York City. All controversies and questions and concerns are welcomed today! Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We serve a God who has great joy and great sorrow; we serve a God in whose image we were created. Let us enjoy Him to the full and never grieve Him.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: In Romans 14, Paul teaches, “whatever is not of faith is sin.” I can give you counsel and wisdom, but ultimately you need to be sure before the Lord about what you believe.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, Dr. Brown is offering two dynamic resources for one special price! You’ll receive Dr. Brown’s highly acclaimed book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood and the powerful DVD teaching series Grafted In: The Jewish Roots of Christianity for the discounted price of $25 postage paid! These resources are making a difference across the globe and it is our hope that they will make the same difference in your life. Order Online HERE!
Other Resources:
Pertaining to the question today that there was no evidence of the Jewish exodus, I received an article this morning regarding this very question.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324
Benjamin,
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen this very interesting article.
I think the Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic Text / Textual Tradition. The Septuagint even predates the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Nicholas, everyone knows that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew original, and the most accurate Hebrew text is that reflected in the MT. What’s the argument?
No argument, sir.
Also, Dr. Brown, I offered an apology for my comment from July 29, 2013, for the July 25 show, also a message to you on Facebook. Thanks very much.
Bless you, Nicholas!
And you, as well, Dr. Brown.
Dr. Brown, regarding the LXX, I think I used the term ‘Masoretic Text’ incorrectly. What I meant was the ‘earliest extant manuscripts of the Hebrew OT’. I’m not trying to argue that the the Tanakh was originally written in Greek, but that the bulk of the earliest extant manuscript copies we have are in Greek.
I guess it’d be similar to the claim (with historical warrant) that there was an Aramaic original of the book of Matthew (or something along those lines). Even if there was an Aramaic original to the book of Matthew, that wouldn’t mean that the Peshitta (which was based largely on the Greek texts, as far as I know) reflects the Aramaic original more accurately just because the language might be the same or very similar. So too, just because we have later Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts, it doesn’t mean that they are more accurate just because they’re written in Hebrew, correct?
I guess my main question would be, why do we largely base our Old Testaments on the Masoretic manuscript tradition if the earliest known copies we have are from the 7th-9th centuries AD (per Wikipedia)?
Shouldn’t we rather use OT manuscripts that are closer in date to the actual date the books were written (Regardless if they’re Greek or Hebrew)? Also, since the writers of the New Testament utilized the Greek Old Testament, shouldn’t we also at least encourage the production of Bibles that are based on the Greek OT texts? When a NT author quotes the OT, it would make sense that it should at least resemble the OT reference, right? Instead, currently we have instances where the OT text we use in the majority of our Bibles doesn’t represent the NT author’s quoting of it – correct?
Also, I’m aware that the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls exist, though I realize they were discovered fairly recently, and I don’t know if the collection of Qumran scrolls provides the same level of benefit as the LXX, meaning earlier dates, and/or total amount of textual plentitude. Though, I think it would be very beneficial to have Bibles utilizing the Qumran manuscripts as well (if there aren’t already).