A missionary wrote "is it true that in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is attested that the family of Jacob arrived in Egypt with 75 people (where the Torah says 70) and that the LXX (Septuagint) also has 75? Is the Torah wrong when it says "70"?"
In the Torah, there are three places where we learn that 70 people went to Egypt with Jacob -
Yet, in the LXX / Septuagint both Genesis 46:27 & Exodus 1:5 mention 75 descendants -- although Deuteronomy 10:22 in the LXX has 70.
Ergo in two places the LXX says 75, but in one it agrees with the Torah and says 70.
Which is right and which is wrong?
The Septuagint (LXX) was an early translation of the Torah (Five Books of Moses) into Greek. The LXX / Septuagint is first mentioned in the 2nd century BCE in the Letter of Aristeas. The letter states that King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246 BCE) wrote to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem demanding that a delegation of Rabbinic experts be sent to Alexandria in order to translates the five books of the Torah into Greek for inclusion in his library. The story eventually found its way into the Talmud (folio 9a of treatise M'gillah).
Ergo the ancient translation of the Torah into Greek was only that of the Torah (Prophets and Writings were not translated) -- and all three of mentions of Jacob's 70 descendants are found in the Torah.
Learned Jews have always studied the Torah in Hebrew, not in Greek. Translations might be used as study aids, or for people in exile who were less learned. . . Over time the Greek translations (which came to include the other books of the bible, but translations varied in good or poor quality and were by persons unknown) became corrupt. Jews stopped using them, although Christians continued to use them much longer.
What is today called the Septuagint (which is the entire Jewish bible in Greek) are translations into Greek from persons unknown at times unknown. There was no quality assurance and as a result they became heavily corrupted over time. By the 5th century the Christians gave up on the LXX / Septuagint because it was so corrupt -- so why people now are debating this is really interesting. The term "self-serving" comes to mind. Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) tried to piece together a decent translation by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). Here is what HE says about how bad the Septuagint had become "we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery." Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.
There is also St. Jerome (early 5th century) who decided to re-translate from the Hebrew rather than rely on the Septuagint saying: "I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended (the Septuagint) with the old edition Theodotions translation."
But. . . . what of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) -- they are 2000 years old and both 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda-Exoda say "75" and not "70."
Wouldn't the DSS attest to the fact that the Torah is wrong?
Just because something appears in a Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) copy does not mean it is perfect -- and that the Jews changed it some time after 2000 years ago. Jews have a mesorah, a method of transmission, of the Torah which has amazing accuracy for Torot (plural of Torah) from around the world.
It is far more likely that some scribe wrote a note in a margin about Ephraim and Menashe's descendants and that note made its way into some copies along the way (Greek and Hebrew). It seems likely that some (if not all) of the scrolls found in Qumran (DSS) were destined for burial (when a Jewish holy work cannot be repaired it must be buried ceremoniously). Often such documents were stored in a repository called a גְּנִיזָה (g'nizah) -- a word which comes from the Hebrew verb גנז meaning to hide away.
There are scroll fragments from Masada (contemporary with the DSS) and from (early 2nd century CE) that are even closer to the Masoretic Text (MT) -- today's bible -- than the DSS - virtually identical; thus, proving the antiquity of the MT.
The Dead Sea Scrolls should not sidetrack you -- much of what was found was stored in a "graveyard." There are scroll fragments from Masada (contemporary with the DSS) and from Wadi Murabit (early 2nd C. CE) that are even closer to the MT than the DSS - virtually identical; thus, proving the antiquity of the Hebrew bible we use today. Actually most of the DSS supports the MT, not the Septuagint - this includes the Great Isaiah Scroll.
We have another ancient witness to the number of 70 (not 75) -- and that is found in the history by Josephus entitled "The Antiquities of the Jews." Written in the 1st century CE it bears witness to the number in the Torah: 70.
"Jacob, encouraged by this dream, went on more cheerfully for Egypt, with his sons, and all belonging to them. Now they were in all seventy. . . If we add these, which are sixteen, to the fifty four, the aforementioned number  is completed"
"As for Jacob, he became well known to strangers also, by the greatness of that prosperity in which he lived, and left to his sons; who came into Egypt with no more than seventy souls; while you are now become above six hundred thousand.. . "
Josephus, writing 2000 years ago (about the same age as the DSS 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda, wrote 70 -- although 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda have 75. `Both are 2000 years old, yet Josephus agrees with the Torah while 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda don't.
Most of the DSS do in fact "match" our modern texts. Those that don't follow the Hebrew (these would be the 4 Greek manuscript fragments that date to around 200 CE), come from cave 4.
Cave 4 is where the texts were not preserved carefully in jars indicating they were not considered as important. Archeologists have surmised that they were damaged texts or simply not important and thus weren't stored in jars.
Both 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda were found in Cave 4.
Given the amazing accuracy of Torah transmission, the reference from Josephus of 2000 years ago, and what we know of Cave 4 it seems highly likely that the Torah is accurate and 4QExodb and 4QGen-Exoda both contained errors.
The Torah tells us time and time and time again that He is one -- not a plurality. People like Craig are grasping at straws and using false analogies (because in human terms love means giving of oneself this same definition applies to G-d is a fallacy -- G-d is not a man).
I'm pasting a post I made in March that may better explain this to you. It's important to realize that although the Torah tells us (for example) that G-d loves Jacob and hates Esau (meaning G-d loves the Jews and hates the descendants of Esau, Malachi 1) this does not mean G-d literally has the emotions of love and hate.
The Torah speaks in the language of man. G-d does not have emotions as we know them -- we are simply trying to use language we as humans understand to put into perspective something we experience of G-d. The following was written by Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro on the forum "Jews with Questions"
G-d has no emotions. Zero. Nada. G-d is totally Simple. An emotional reaction - love, hate, loneliness, excitement - would mean, chas v’sholom, that…
When we say G-d “loves us” it means that G-d caused things to happen in such a way that it feels like He loves us. If someone else would have done that to us, it would be driven by love.
Hashem has no accidental attributes at all, meaning that there’s no such thing as anything being part of Hashem. There is no such thing as “G-d's knowledge”, “G-d's strength”, or “G-d's love” - all of those things would mean that He has components, which is not true.
The Rabbi was asked: "So when we ask G-d to have mercy on us, compassion, etc, we are asking for him to deal with us in a way that we define as mercy, compassion, etc? (It’s very hard to understand this because we think like humans and G-d can’t be defined in human terms, like you said.) But what I don’t understand is that, when G-d acts with mercy towards us, isn’t He having mercy, so doesn’t that mean He has mercy?"
G-d has no mercy in the emotional sense. He does, however, act in such a way that the results are the same as if He would have had mercy.
That’s what we mean when we ask G-d for mercy. We mean He should act in a way that seems merciful to us, although what we think of as human mercy is not His motivation.
When we say Hashem has “mercy” for instance, we do not mean that Hashem chas v’sholom has an emotion. We mean that Hashem at times acts in such a way that it feels to us as if He was merciful.
It's like, for instance, when you put the wrong software in your computer and it acts up. You may say, as a figure of speech, that the “computer doesn’t like the software” or even “the computer got angry”. The computer doesn’t really have any emotions or likes, but it acted in a way that metaphorically can be described as “anger”.
So too, when we say Hashem gets “angry” we mean that Hashem acts in a way that seems to us angry. But there was no emotion of anger involved.
So if we had a real Loshon Hakodesh dictionary there would be an entry like this:
an•ger n. - Hashem's actions toward us that seem as if He would have a strong feeling of displeasure or hostility.
“Anger”, when it refers to Hashem, is only a figure of speech.
"The Rabbi was asked: So if our actions can’t be compared to Hashem’s at all, how can the Torah say that our Midos (character traits.) should emulates G-d’s – ma hu rachum, af ata rachum? If all these Midos (character traits). in regard to Hashem are only a Moshol (a short parable with a moral lesson), then how can we “emulate” Hashem by us having real Midos (character traits),
You are asking that if our midos have nothing to do with Hashem's, and are merely homonyms, then how can we ever “resemble” Hashem in our Midos (character traits.?).
The answer is that when we say Hashem is “strong” it means He does not need strength because even without the attribute of strength He is never weak; when we say He is wise it means He does not need the thing we call wisdom because He is never ignorant, even without it; when we say Hashem is merciful it means that He does not need the emotion of mercy - even without it, He is not cruel. It is Hashem's perfection that causes Him not to have any of these traits; He is so perfect that He does not need any of them. Traits such as wisdom, mercy, and the like are only positive things if you need them. We do. Hashem does not.
So when we are commanded to be like Hashem, we are expected to use those traits that Hashem does not need, in order to mimic the actions that Hashem performs without them.
If fact, if you examine the way the Rambam quotes the Halachah (Jewish law) of ma-hu-af-ata ("Just as Hashem is merciful and compassionate, so too, you [i.e., man] should be merciful and compassionate." - Shabbat 133b)., you will see this idea explicitly. The exact wording of the Rambam is: .מה הוא נקרא רחום אף אתה היה רחום
In other words, Hashem is merely “called” merciful, but we are commanded to actually be merciful.
The Rabbi was asked: One more thing: if G-d doesn't experience emotion, then He must either be incapable of emotion or chose not to experience it. Surely G-d would choose to love His own people if it were a possibility, so then, is He incapable of love? If so, wouldn't that be placing boundaries on a limitless G-d? And either way, what is the purpose of davening (prayer) and fulfilling all sorts of requirements if not to please G-d?
G-d is incapable of emotion since He is incapable of change, since He is beyond time, and to change means to be a “victim” of time; and He cannot have emotions for various other reasons - it would contradict His simplicity and His perfection.
And no, this is not a limitation to G-d. Thinking so is just a trick of the mind. You ask: “If G-d is perfect, then can He make Himself imperfect? No?... Aha! The He can’t do everything!”
G-d cannot scratch His nose; He cannot kill Himself; He cannot be weak. No, no, no. The answer is a simple “No”. And no, it’s not a limitation to be always limitless and it’s not a weakness if you can’t be weak.
"The Rabbi was asked: So let me get this straight....everything that's said about "G-d's love" isn't literal at all? So G-d's feelings about us are totally neutral, or don't really exist? Sorry, it’s just kind of a weird realization to think that...but if G-d didn't really "love" us, and if He doesn't "need" or "want" anything, then what would be His motivation to create the world?"
Right. G-d's “love” isn’t literal. Neither is His anger, or any other emotion. (But it's not that "G-d's feelings are totally neutral." It's that the whole concept of physical, subconscious, unconscious, brain-released-chemical-induced emotional changes.)
And your question that if G-d has no emotions and does not “love” us, then why did G-d make the world, is a wonderful one. By asking it you have uncovered one of the greatest teachings of Creation:
G-d created the world for our benefit, with nothing for Him to gain at all.
That is the difference between “generosity” as it applies to us and “generosity” as it applies to Hashem. For us, there is always a reason why we want to be generous. We always have something to gain - a mitzvah, a feeling of satisfaction, a little recognition, whatever. For Hashem, there was none of this.
He wanted to create us and give us Gan Eden - eternal, infinite happiness - only for our sake. He gains nothing. He did it because He wanted to. For us. With absolutely zero benefit for Himself.
The topic you brought up – the Purpose of Creation – is an important one indeed, but as you have just discovered, it can only be understood properly after we establish that Hashem’s actions do not have the same “reasons” as our actions. Our actions bring benefit to ourselves. Even “selfless” acts provide a sense of satisfaction and garner us reward for having done a Mitzvah. When Hashem acts, He does not get any benefit at all. He cannot benefit – that would imply a change, and some kind of gain. What is outside of time cannot change, and what is Kulo Poshut (perfectly simple, no characteristics, no qualities) cannot “gain” anything at all.
"The Rabbi was asked: When you say such things like "Hashem is One”, "He just is, He never began nor ever will end,” "Hashem is Kulo Pushut (that means perfectly simple, no characteristics, no qualities)" etc. - do you fully understand what these terms mean or are you just referring us to different places where Hashem is described? Honestly, can we really comprehend what this truly means?"
The meanings of these terms are easily understood; but visualizing someone or something with these characteristics is impossible - not only for us but for Moshe Rabbeinu, too. When Moshe asked Hashem “show me your glory”, what he wanted to understand was the essence of Hashem, to which Hashem answered: “No living being can see Me.” This means that as long as we are physical beings, we cannot conceptualize these things.
This is so because the human mind does not generate its own knowledge; rather, it absorbs information from the outside and rearranges it in the mind. So someone, let’s say, who was born blind, can never understand the difference between blue and red. There’s absolutely no way you can explain it to him.
Someone who never experienced infinity cannot imagine what he himself means when he says “space never ends”. And neither can he understand what it would mean if he’d say that space does end. Because we have experienced neither infinity nor anything outside of space, we cannot conceptualize those thoughts. Yet the infiniteness of space - or its having an end - can be understood “on paper,” even if our mind’s eye is not sharp enough to picture it.
So too, the things we know about G-d can definitely be understood “on paper,” but we will not be able to imagine them in our minds.
There is a great difference between “impossible” and “unable to be visualized.” There is no reason to say that a Muchrach HaMetzius (the first cause) is impossible. There is no logic that negates the possibility of such an existence. But just because something is real does not mean we can visualize it.
Visualization is possible only if we experienced the reality that we want to visualize. Since we never experienced a Muchrach HaMetzius (the first cause) we cannot visualize it.
However, an infinite regression of causes, for example, is not merely impossible to visualize. It is impossible to exist. Because infinity never ends, the amount of causes in the past cannot be infinite, because those causes have already ended. Logic precludes the existence of an infinite regression of anything in the past. Therefore, when faced with the choice of an infinite regression of causes, which is impossible, or a Muchrach HaMetzius (the first cause) which is not impossible, we conclude that a Muchrach HaMetzius must have been the First Cause.