Debate on LXX vs Masoretic

Video commented on

Was The Bible Written Or Changed By The Illuminati?!?!
Andood James
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc7kxvsNq5I

Hans-Georg Lundahl (on video)

2:48 Does the agreeing passage corpus include the genealogy of Adam to Noah?

Because there, Masoretics disagree with LXX. Not on total age of each patriarch, but on what age he had the relevant son.

conor henderson

1656 years from creation to flood. And 292 years from flood to Abrahams birth. Bible is myth fiction book anyways.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, LXX disagrees, and Holy Writte is not fiction.

conor henderson

It is fiction unfortunately. Sorry to speak the truth and reality it's not God given or endorsed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry to contradict your prejudices, but it is truth

Genealogy was a good work of human historians, many of whom were Saints, and when Moses used it, he also knew it was endorsed by God.

Between Adam and Moses overlaps of lifetimes were such that only eight tradition bearers were needed, while more were available overlapping with those eight.

A pretty good reason to believe it's accurate.

However, six days before creation of Adam, that was revelation, not under direct human observation.

Creation		-		5199 before Christ
Flood		-		2957 b. C.
Birth of Abraham		-		2015 b. C.

5199
2957
________
2242 years from Creation to Flood

2957
2015
_________
0942 years from Flood to Birth of Abraham

(Probably the eight person necessary overlaps are more acc to other chronology, with 292 years : Haydock uses Ussher over St Jerome).

conor henderson

Masoretic is true over the false septugint and the septugint has that fake cainan that doesnt exist arphaxad and shealah are direct father son in relationship just like all the other characters in genesis 5 and 11 geneologies. Correction creation 400o bce flood 2300 bce and abraham 2000bce so the true dates are no earlier than this the septugint is false when it come to chronology and other things. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Cainan was probably not counted in Masoretic or even Hebrew original, since he was a sinner, according to a Jewish story.

Then LXX was for Greeks who did not have this convention, and Cainan was added as per fact and as per Greek convention of genealogy. St Matthew omits three in a row for a similar reason, whom St Luke does not omit.

LXX being false is not just a "Jewish" story, it's a "Jewish anti-Christian story" or factoid.

conor henderson

No most were wicked in jewish mytho tradition only noah shem and eber were righteous besides abraham cainan is a fake. There were 70 nations not 72. Arphaxad and shelah are direct like the rest luke has an error either originally or forgery. The jewish texts are right not the christian version being genesis is jewish holy text. Also noah numeric value in herbrew is 58 and the masoretic shows that abraham was 58 when noah died isnt that interesting. This and many others show that the masoretic is true over the septugint in translation. When it comes to chronology.

Methuselah in the greek dies after the flood when in fact he dies before the flood in fact in the original hebrew he dies the year of the flood and his name means when he dies judgement (Flood) will come. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, Methuselah in Greek does NOT die after the Flood, rather I think 17 years before the flood. Judgements may have been coming before the Flood for some time.

conor henderson

No that is complete nonsense and false obviously you dont know hebrew or the myths in genesis Enoch when he had his Methuselah he named him that to signify a coming judgement that was to be put on man for his sins and the name means a prophecy of a flood only one judgement on the predevillum world (flood) Methuselah lived 969 years in truth and this from the original hebrew displayed in the masoretic showing its superior validity over the flawed edited septugint. The flood happens in the year 1656 after creation which is the year methuselah dies. This the 600th year of Noah's life and 98th year of Shem's life. Also the tower of Babel took place 340 years after the flood which in Abraham's life time when he was 48 years. This in the life time of his ancestor Peleg who lived 239 years. This was at the end of pelegs the tower happens and his father Eber when he was 34 years old had him and named him in a prophecy of earth divison (Read Genesis 10) also his other son (Eber's son/Peleg's brother) Joktan (name means to split in half or lessen) he is named for the same purpose with lil differenbt result to lessen the ages of people in the hebrew myth of origins. Its interesting to note that pelegs lifespan is half of his ebers lifespan 239 years compared to 464 years. As well as 175 years with Abraham. Another point is that Eber which is root of hebrews was 400 years old when abraham died in which fulfills and coincides with the prophecy promise of genesis 15 where for 400 years abrahams descendants will be mistreated who are hebrews. Eber 400 years old at abrahams death doesnt seem like it was just coincidence. Finally Noah was a contemporary of Abraham as you know he was 950 years old when he died and was 600 when the flood, well according to the original hebrew displayed by the masoretic Noah was 502 when shem was born and when you add up all the ages of father begating the named son youll get that noah was 892 years old when abraham was born and abraham was 58 years old when he (Noah) died. Also noah in hebrew the original language of the Bible and jewish myth shows us that noah like many words has numeric value and his value in hebrew is 58 just like the abraham at noahs death. Once again this is not just a coincedence that these two of the same number cross they must be united as the same. So there you go proof that the masoretic is true over the septugint translation when it comes to things like chronology. There abraham was born 1948 years after creation. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Josephus:

"Now Mathusela, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old, had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age; to whom he delivered the government, when he had retained it nine hundred and sixty-nine years. Now Lamech, when he had governed seven hundred and seventy-seven years, appointed Noah, his son, to be ruler of the people, who was born to Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two years old, and retained the government nine hundred and fifty years. These years collected together make up the sum before set down. But let no one inquire into the deaths of these men; for they extended their lives along together with their children and grandchildren; but let him have regard to their births only."

I will have to look at LXX somewhere else.

conor henderson

LXX is false

Hans-Georg Lundahl

English LXX:

"25 And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech eight hundred and two years, and begot sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were nine hundred and sixty and nine years, and he died. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. 29 And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed. 30 And Lamech lived after his begetting Noe, five hundred and sixty and five years, and begot sons and daughters. 31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died. 32 And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth."

Mathusala		0
Mathusala		167		Lamech		0
Mathusala		255		Lamech		188		Noe		0
Mathusala		755		Lamech		688		Noe		500

We have a possible problem ... Mathusala 855 is too young.

188		255
167		500
____________
255		755

I do not know if perhaps the solution of Josephus might be best.

Or this chronology gives date of Methusala's death as Anno Mundi 2256, and of Flood as 2262 - thus after his death:

Bible Chronology
of the Biblical Patriarchs
(on Bible Prophecy)
http://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/bible-chronology_3.html

conor henderson

false and flawed invalid still wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

take the time to point out the counting error if there is one in the columns for Septuagint!

[Note I said "counting error" and by saying "columns for Septuagint" I was referring to that page.]

conor henderson

Cainan character, methuselah dies 14 vyears after the flood the obvious forgery of 100 year extras in the age of each fater begaters ect.

These are the errors so you are wrong.

[Note that whether erroneous or not, the arithmetic error if any was not pointed out and the page was simply ignored. In it, Methuselah does not die after Flood.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, you gave "textual errors", I was asking for the counting error. In the link I gave you, where Methusala does not die 14 years after the Flood.

What you consider textual errors is because of your preference for another text tradition. That of the infidel Jewry.

conor henderson

You are a fool tradition genesis and hebrew myths which all are the same show that Abraham was born 1948 after Creation (Genesis 1.1)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree Genesis 1:1 is about Creation.

As to tradition, the tradition kept by Greek Orthodox as well as that incorporated by St Jerome in Christmas proclamation, or rather its Roman chronology, do not corroborate the Jewish post-Christian one.

"Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono (5199); a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo (2957); a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo (2015); a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo (1510); ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo (1032); Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam (65th week); Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta (194th Olympiad); ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo (752); anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo (42), toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo."

conor henderson

Masoretic is still the correct one

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Christian Bible is correct.

For OT that means Septuagint and Vulgate among the languages I know sth of.

conor henderson

It is not correct that is the problem especially when it comes to chronology Shem and Eber and Noah etc all Knew Abraham. Abraham was 292 years after flood and 1948 years after your creation myth began making the creation date 4000bce. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let me get your point straight:

• a) it never happened
• b) when it was invented (how much of it was invented by the way, where do you cut the line?) the chronology back then was same as masoretic right now
• c) so LXX tradition is faulty for telling a story that never happened (according to you of course) other than those who first told the story?

According to what exact moral principle?

Copyright issues?

Wasn't invented!

conor henderson

Inconsistencies errors and clear forgery and alteration of the texts of the original hebrew go look up the comment feeds and you ll see where the points are with the errors of the septuagint. So you are just wrong again quit trying and adamit your position is incorrect. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I saw the POINTS WHERE you consider Septuagint erroneous and forged.

I was asking about WHERE IN CHRONOLOGY - the one I linked to - there was a counting error, an error of arithmetic. So far you haven't answered.

This is not a small point, since Mathusala dying 14 years after flood might be an inconsistency. But if a LXX based chronology can fix that, no problem on this account for LXX.

How about trying to be honest about how debate has gone hitherto? How about trying to look up how answers have been met or not met with answers?

Ah, here we have it.

Methuselah
(father of Lamech at)		187
(died at)		969
(born AM)		1287
(died AM)		2256
Flood
		2262 (AM)

Footnote:

Methuselah: Other LXX texts give F [ather of next patriarch at] = 167, but if this were correct, he would have died 14 years after the Flood.

Unfortunately, few early copies of the Septuagint survive, and even they differ a little. The Alexandrine text is followed here, with differences noted in footnotes.

And according to same chronology, Abraham being born in AM 3334 had overlapping lifespan with previous patriarchs from Serug on

Serug :
130		father of Nahor
330		died
3055		(born, AM)
3385		(died, AM)

Still the Alexandrine text of LXX.

conor henderson

But the problem is in the original hebrew all of them noah to nahor including terah all knew abraham and noah dies when abraham was 58 years old and noah hebrew numerics is 58 so there you go those two of the same number are meant to unite as one so youre not right again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"in the original hebrew"

Well, Masoretic is certainly Hebrew, but much later than Septuagint.

I think you might exaggerate the importance of gematria.

Noah may have died when someone else than Abraham was 58. Or Noah having 58 as numeric value may have to do with something else than anyone's age, or even with time at all. Or, it may have no meaning we have found as yet. I will not deny it might have no meaning at all, but it might be a meaning we don't know.

Do you recall Bible code Messiah, Pesach, the Hebrew year corresponding to 2012, of course in Masoretic chronology, and Capricorn?

There was a Capricorn that set itself above the Messiah at Christian Easter that year (and that year Catholic and Protestant dates coincided with Hebrew dates partially). By going to ski instead. Not what Glazerson thought it meant, but a meaning he had not foreseen.

conor henderson

He didnt though none he died when abraham was 58 and no one elseMasoretic is superior over septuagint.

Not an exageration your opinion is deluded and has a false conclusion and misunderstanding. You are wrong 

The original hebrew reflects the masoretic in terms of chronology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. You got that backwards. We don't have the original. We have as indications there was one, LXX, Vulgate, Masoretic and a few more (I don't know how far back you go to get Samaritan version testified - it branched off from original Hebrew 930's - 931 I think - BC).

So, the question is which of the preserved versions reflects the original Hebrew.

According to the tradition I believe in, both Septuagint and Vulgate do so better than Masoretic : however these differ in chronology, Vulgate agreeing with Masoretic for pre-Flood Patriarchs, but probably not for post-Flood. And LXX disagrees with Masoretic on both time frames.

However, when Vulgate was first translated, it was not received as a more accurate text than LXX, but as a text more apt to use when arguing with Jews. In other words, St Jerome's translation work was not received as being more authoritative in matters of historic fact, nor does Trentine Council make it so. St Jerome based his chronology for Christmas proclamation on ... LXX.

conor henderson

It is still more accurate than the Septuagint in terms of chronology 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you are Jew, I can see why you think so.

Does not make it so.

conor henderson

It is so jew gentile or other whatever Masoretic is the right translation Fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

Fact is:

• Hebrew O - > LXX
• Hebrew O - > Peschitta
• Hebrew O - > Vulgate
• Hebrew O - > Masoretic

In that chronological order.

[But not necessarily with equal correctitude or directitude for all derivatives.]

This leaves the question open which of these versions (Masoretic is not a translation, but contains a vocalisation not there in Hebrew O) is closest to original one.

• Greek Orthodox would say LXX.
• Syriac Christians would say Peschitta.
• Latin Rite Roman Catholics would say either LXX or Vulgate.
• Jews (and Protestants) have considered Masoretic the closest.

There is no secular, non-religious, religiously non-biassed way to decide with absolute certitude.

conor henderson

Yes masoretic despite being after septugint is still correct over the greek in chronology of the story. In genesis youre not gonna the fact that you position is invalid and mine is valid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In genesis [...] valid."

Not in Genesis, and not anywhere else either.

conor henderson

Really youre wrong again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you for bringing nothing new to the issue. Saves me the trouble of actually thinking.

conor henderson

hahahahahahahahahaah actually you arent thinking at all I still debunked you

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. Not except to a prejudiced public of Jews and similar Masoretic partisans.

conor henderson

No the facts and now i criticize and expose.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, your only exposure of LXX was that it would make Methusala die 14 years after Flood - which changes if you look at Alexandrine Manuscript.

Stating "LXX inflates ages" can be turned around to "Samaritan and post-Christian Jewish deflate ages" (at which a patriarch got his relevant son). Stating "Masoretic has these numerologically significant relationships" can be turned around to "Masoretic was gently faked in the edges to include numerologically significant relationships".

You have stated nothing that cannot be turned around, so far.

conor henderson

There is much more look them all up. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, if you only saw three lines, you should click the blue text on the bottom of my comment.

conor henderson

It's irrelevant still.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, your arguments have been erroneous or irrelevant to the question so far.

For instance "LXX added" is irrelevant because one can just as easily say "Masoretic and Samaritan subtracted". Indeed, if you uphold Masoretic, you must say "Samaritan subtracted".

Also, if you are truly an atheist and truly think all of this is just made up stuff where nothing even near it ever happened anywhere, why do you care so much about which version a Christian uses?

conor henderson

Ugh no they are not erroneous they are right on they the money.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did not read the rest of my comment did you?

conor henderson

I did and youre still wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Youre still wrong" is not a very specific argument to counter mine, is it?

conor henderson

Do you have too counter you're wrong still and you didn't change it so it's valid now move on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Might do so, but not by admitting you were right. And you have still NOT answered the Q why an atheist is so sectarian about which version of the Bible. One can hardly add "is correct" on your view.

conor henderson

I am correct

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I heard you say so. I didn't see you prove it. And you are STILL not replying why you have such a stake on this. Wouldn't it be great to add "Methusela died 14 years after Flood" vs "Only Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives survived" to "Bible contradictions"?

Except of course, you'd have to admit it doesn't work according to Alexandrine manuscript, which gives a more normal sequence of events.

conor henderson

i did prove you cant accept it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And you can't accept I find your bias suspicious, since you call yourself an atheist or sth like that.

Are you Jew? Protestant? Or apostate Catholic?

conor henderson

I'm not an atheist dummy I never gave that impression and you're a heretic to your beliefs. I don't accept it because it's false unfortunately and it is demonstratively.

I'm neither of those

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, "not atheist" - which precise religion would call Genesis either version "made up"?

As to me being a heretic to my own beliefs, no I am not.

If I were inconsistent with my own principles, you could perhaps prove that by a logical reasoning. But when it comes to being a heretic to my beliefs, you must know what my tradition of belief says.

Now, Catholic Church has both Latin rite and Eastern Rites. In Greek Eastern Rites, the OT is LXX. In Slavonic Eastern Rites, the OT is a translation of LXX, not of Vulgate, as far as I know, though the selection of canon might agree with Vulgate more than with Schismatic Churches. Only Latin Church has a non-LXX OT - within European cultural sphere. Possibly some Syrians have a Peschitta OT.

But the point is, when Vulgate was defended in Trent, it was not defended with exactly the same adherence as some Prots give KJV. It was defined as having all that is necessary in salvific terms in creed and morals unblemished, but it was not defined as being historically accurate whereever it differs from LXX.

And the traditional Christmas proclamation goes by the chronology of St Jerome, which he made on LXX basis, not on basis of his own Vulgate translation. It places Birth of God as Man in Anno Mundi 5199, not anywhere near 4004. That means, St Jerome used some LXX version of how old Adam was when Seth was born etc.

"Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo ..."

5199 AM
2957 ADiluvii
_________
2242 AM for Diluvium

Not the Alexandrine version of LXX cited, but certainly one version of LXX and NOT one of Masoretic or Vulgate (Masoretic didn't exist yet, btw).

conor henderson

You're still a heretic and wrong masoretic is still the correct chronology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A "heretic" according to what "faith"?

Not according to the Catholic one.

And if you think Genesis is made up, you have no business caring about whether I am a heretic or not.

By the way, you have not answered which your religion is.

And don't say "agnostic" as if that were sth really different from atheism, pretty please!

I looked up

conor henderson's Google profile, read some other comments and added:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wait, you are an Osiris worshipper?

How sad!

You will probably be joining Nimrod in the pit of fire, for your dismal choice of religion.

conor henderson

Nimrod is fictional you blasphemer nimrod came long after Osiris he is Almighty God. Masoretic text is the correct chronology. You worship jesus and yahweh the lake of fire have you for your false god choice. Theres nothing sad about what i choose but have a bad sad choice. Whoever told you these this lied to you. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is a neat way of figuring out who is right between us.

Osiris hasn't been worshipped in public for near two millennia.

The world still stands.

Either he is not God, or he doesn't care.

So either way we have a right to be Christians.

Since you are so into Egypt, how come you are so despising of Copts and of the Alexandrine manuscript of the LXX, in which Methuselah dies before the Flood? I mean when you add up.

Plus, wouldn't an Osiris worshipper also worship Maath?

Metis, measure?

What is measured about telling a son his mother lied to him when he became a Christian? Especially since it is extremely certain that even if we were mistaken, she was in perfect good faith.

But even if I found out she had, from her viewpoint, been lying, which I don't think I will, I have learned so much that confirms it, I will not take it as objective lies anyway. That extra includes Catholic Church and thus also Deuterocanonic Books and thus also Septuagint.

You roll off your accusations and vituperations totally without measure. Sorry, without noticeable measure. And it is a bit unmeasured to take such violent part in an affair that doesn't concern you. It's as if I were to try to decide whether Osiris worship or Marduk worship was the most correct form of Nimrod worship. And yes, LXX or Masoretic, Nimrod is in the book.

conor henderson

Osiris Worship is not nimrod worship you liar blasphemer and fool and marduk is not nimrod either they both came before nimrod by hundreds to thousands of years earlier. So thats completely false and plus from the correct masoretic which you deny wrongly shows that nimrod lived around 2100 bce and no earlier since the bible doesnt allow for push backs. So tell how can their be a connection when they are completely different characters as well as different beings and different origins ? Yahweh is agamemnon with that same false logic. Who ever told you this lie about LORD God Osiris lied to you and have no facts or evidence or truth for their ungodly claim. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"masoretic which you deny wrongly shows that nimrod lived around 2100 bce and no earlier since the bible doesnt allow for push backs."

LXX allows for some "push back".

Different beings does not absolutely mean "not same person".

According to us Christians, Jesus is God and Man. According to Jews, a man.

Now, wicked men have sometimes wanted to be worshipped as gods, like two- three thousand years later Odin among the Swedes.

So, Osiris could be a false god and a real man.

And, if it has anything to do with Asur, Nimrod is a suspect.

As to Nimrod being Marduk, well, let's put it like this, he was a giant, he sometimes killed monsters, and he could easily have bragged sth like "you should have seen me when I was younger, I killed Tiamat and made the earth we walk on, from her carcass, yessirs, we are walking on a monster I killed" a little before trying the next move, Tower of Babel.

However, once people saw he was mortal, they could instead of saying "there was no Marduk" have said sth like "Enmerker was not Marduk". Unless of course, he died a bit further off, like in Egypt.

And written the Gilgamesh epic about him instead of worshipping him as the king they had.

Swedes were even more gullible, they did see Odin reign, they did even see him on a bonfire, I guess, but they still thought of him as a supreme god and Marduk style creator having lived among them. Like Hindoos did with Krishna despite recording he died and was put on a bonfire for cremation.

Either way, both Egypt and Babylon were under his pre-Tower of Babel superpower.

"Yahweh is agamemnon with that same false logic."

C'mon, Christ hardly behaved like Agamemnon, did He?

Hereafter

henderson comes with a long speech, I am not sure I am answering all of it.

conor henderson

Nimrod is not a giant he was an average sized man, and he was not marduk. Most of these Gods predate Nimrod by hundreds to thousands of years earlier. Septugint does not allow for push backs it has forgeries like an extra 100 years to each patriarchs age of begating the next generation and fake generation (Cainan) in the geneology of genesis 11 they did that to extend the timeline of the torah with outsude sources that are true. They did not realize the error of doing that by distorting the messages in their scriptures also the masoretic is superior because its original compared to the dead sea scrolls meaning that they are reflecting the original text and they have textual consistency and flow in the chronology something the septugint doesnt have. So nimrod was around 2100 bce and no earlier bible does not allow for any push backs in the accurate text chronology. Enmerkar is not nimrod there is several difference between them and there is no evidence nimrod ever existed and enmerkar existed before nimrod and noah and the flood so there is a problem with your claim. Osiris is a true God and you all have turned away from his glory and you need to turn back. Odin is also a True God the swedes were not gullible only when they turned away from him were they fools. Nimrod did not die in egypt according to jewish legend he died in mesopotamia or the middle east you dummy. Different being dont prove the same it means different no connection absolutely. "Either way, both Egypt and Babylon were under his pre-Tower of Babel superpower." There is no proof of that and again no evidence nimrod ever existed and its obvious he is based off enermerkar and Sargon the Great. Osiris exist long before nimrod and so did marduk and Gilgamesh too (nimrod in the correct chronology lived around 2100 bce) so that connection is falsified now. A God living among people is not proof he is not a Deity didnt your false god jesus live among people yes well then you are stupid and contradict yourself. There you go i refuted every point you made and once again proved you wrong. The Gods are Gods not humans or any other lesser beings but Deities.

Asur is Ausar not the same but different deities ive debunked that connection myself and isnt ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria according to bible/hebrew myth even its obvious that he is based off the God assur of Assyria so you are wrong on your points.

Jesus and yahweh are worse than agamemnon and in fact yahweh could be a man and seen as a king and agamemnon a king so they could be the same see your false logic.

You need to repent of your beliefs before it's too late. What you said and believe unfortunately are lies.

The bibles stories of our origins consistently proven to be not true so there goes another of your arguments blown up as invalid.

Someone obviously told you this lie you would not have come to this on your own was it Alexander hislop or Rob skiba they are as I've seen the main sources of this claim about nimrod and his so called non existent connections to other religions and gods when in truth and reality there is no connection just false claims that are impossible thus false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"isnt ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria"

That is a fair comment.

There are two Asur in the genealogy, the son of Shem and Nimrod, if that is the grammatically correct reading.

I am indeed indepted to Rob Skiba, but I do not consider him a liar.

I know very little about Hislop.

However, Catholic views of history, indepted to Josephus, say idolatry was started by Ninus and Belus - and one of them could be Nimrod.

As to Nimrod not being a giant, well, "he began to be a giant" or "he began to be mighty" - Hebrew has gebôr, it would seem (indepted to Skiba).

Lion crunching rulers have been shown on Babylonian steles.

"Asur is Ausar not the same but different deities ive debunked that connection myself"

Where?

Link will be read if given.

"Jesus and yahweh are worse than agamemnon and in fact yahweh could be a man and seen as a king and agamemnon a king so they could be the same see your false logic."

Neither is "worse than" or as bad as Agamemnon. And Agamemnon never made any claims of being a god himself, as far as we know.

On the contrary, when he tried to emulate Joshua, he prayed to Helios. Joshua had in fact ordered Sun and Moon to obey what with the approval of God he told them, but Agamemnon tried to pray to Helios. He failed.

That is when Greeks decided to not recall Joshua's long day as it happened, but afterwards they mixed it with the other solar miracle of the Sun going backward ten or twenty lines and made it "Helios went up in the West and set in the East over horror over Thyestes' children."

"The bibles stories of our origins consistently proven to be not true"

Proven - by what?

By Egyptian inflated datings that gave king scorpion sth like 10.000 years? Or by pseudo-scientific uses of radiometric dating?

"so there goes another of your arguments blown up as invalid."

I wasn't arguing so far about these - to you that is.

I was arguing about priority of LXX over Masoretic.

Dead Sea scrolls are younger than LXX translation and by then there could have come to a divergence over texts between Greek and Hebrew.

Indeed, Dead Sea scrolls include Wisdom of Jeshua Ben Sirach, which is canonic in LXX but lacking in Masoretic.

Apocalypse of Lamech or Genesis Apocryphon would not be a text of Genesis, and so far I have not seen one listed.

Ah, now I see a list of Genesis fragments [in the list of the scrolls]:

Cave 1:

Genesis 12:18-15:4 (but this is only KJV association, it is really Genesis Apocryphon and in Aramaic).

Genesis 1:18-21; 3:11-14; 22:13-15; 23:17-19; 24:22-24

It is chapter 5 (missing) which contains contested genealogies.

Cave 2:

Book of Genesis 19:27–28; 36:6, 35–37

Like Genesis Apocryphon too late in Genesis for our purpose.

Genesis 25:7-9; Book of Jubilees

Cave 4:

Genesis 8:20-21; Exodus 1–4; 5:3-17; 6:4-21,25; 7:5-13,15-20; 8:20-22; 9:8; 22:14; 27:38-39,42-43; 34:17-21

Genesis 1:1–27; 2:14–19; 4:2–4; 5:13

5:13 might be relevant.

No, wasn't:

[13] And Cainan lived after he begot Malaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and begot sons and daughters.

It was 5:12 that was relevant. No wait, 5:13 does cite the second part [of his lifespan], there that might be relevant.

Genesis 40-41

Genesis 1:18-27

Genesis 36–37; 40–43; 49

Genesis 48:1–11

Genesis 1:1-11,13-22; 2:6-7

May be relevant for coordination of "two creation stories", but not for our purpose.

Genesis 1:8-10; 2:17-18; 12:4–5

Genesis 41–43; 45

Genesis 1:9,14-16,27-28; 2:1-3; 3:1-2

Genesis 50:26; Exodus 1:1–5; 2:10,22–25; 3:1–4,17–21; 8:13–15, 19–21; 9:25–29, 33–35; 10:1–5; 11:4–10; 12:1–11, 42–46; 14:15–24; 16:2–7, 13–14,18–20,23–25,26–31,33–35; 17:1–3,5–11; 18:17–24; 19:24–25; 20:1–2; 22:23–24; 23:5–16; 25:7–20; 26:29–37; 27:1, 6–14; 28:33–35,40–42; 36:34–36

Genesis 26:21-28 Exodus 6:25–30; 7:1–19,29; 8:1,5,12–26; 9:5–16,19–21,35; 10:1–12,19–28; 11:8–10; 12:1–2,6–8,13–15,17–22,31–32,34–39; 13:3–7,12–13; 14:3–5,8–9,25–26; 15:23–27; 16:1,4–5,7–8,31–35; 17:1–16; 18:1–27; 19:1,7–17,23–25; 20:1,18–19; 21:5–6, 13–14,22–32; 22:3–4,6–7,11–13,16–30; 23:15–16,19–31; 24:1–4,6–11; 25:11–12,20–29,31–34; 26:8,15,21–30; 27:1–3,9–14,18–19; 28:3–4,8–12,22–24,26–28,30–43; 29:1–5,20,22–25,31–41; 30:10,12–18,29–31,34–38; 31:1–8,13–15; 32:2–19,25–30; 33:12–23; 34:1–3,10–13,15–18,20–24,27–28; 35:1; 36:21–24; 37:9–16

After that, it is pure Exodus in Cave 4. No more Genesis. Except at end, commentaries:

Genesis 7:11; 8:5,13; 9:24; 22:10

Genesis 9:24-25

Genesis 6:15

Reworked Pentateuch:

Genesis 32:25-30; 32:31 ?; Exodus 3:12; 4:27-28; 19:17-23; 24:4-6; 20:12-17,19-21 (Samaritan), 22-26; 21:15-25, 32-37; 22:1-13; 30:32.34; Deuteronomy 5:30-31; 21:1-10

Genesis 25:18-21; 26:7-8; 28:6; 29:32-33; 30:8-14,26-36; 31:47-53; 32:18-20,26-30; 34:2

And two more:

Genesis 1:28-29, or Book of Jubilees

Genesis 34:7-10; 50:3

Cave 6:

Genesis 6:13-21

Cave 8:

Genesis 17:12-19; 18:20-25

Wadi Murabba'at Cave 1:

Genesis 32:4-5,30,33-33:1; 34:5-7,30-35:1,4-7

It would even seem the Essenes might have been avoiding to cite the ages.

One single fragment of one verse supports the Masoretic and presumably also Samaritan version. Yes, checked. Both these non LXX versions have support there.

A little lean to support Masoretic as certainly more genuine than LXX - especially since the Masoretic could be taking over an error from Dead Sea scrolls.

"The Gods are Gods not humans or any other lesser beings but Deities."

God is God and became Man. Several false gods are false concepts of the true one or of His angels, several are demonic, and even more were once human.

"ashur the son of shem the founder of assyria according to bible/hebrew myth even its obvious that he is based off the God assur of Assyria so you are wrong on your points. "

Unless it's the other way round of course.

Ha, I came to note sth. One of the readings in Dead Sea disagrees with Masoretic and is Samaritan.