|God's Transmutation Physics
|DDNA, Cross Transmutation Mechanics
|God's Plan & Evolution compared
Reading tip: if you can already read Bible's Greek and Hebrew text, you'll prefer the amalgamation of page 4ff in the shorter ISA53.RTF, a Word.doc. The first text line of that rtf is a link that enables you to download the BibleWorks fonts; else you can't read the Hebrew and Greek there. That rtf file's amalgamated-text demonstration is much more succinct (and not translated), versus what follows below.
If you just want a quick, amalgamated translation, hit the End key and then scroll up till you see it in a box. There are other ways to combine and thus translate the texts. Still, the meaning would be the same, and it MATTERS to see the combining. What follows below, will explain why it matters, and will provide some (windy) exgetical details not in the rtf doc.
In the "Thinking" and DDNA webseries (links at pagetop), this type of pink background is used to denote the Bridal Contract between God and Church; the Contract is a subset and corollary of an eternity-past contract between Father and Son for all creation; the heart of this contract is most succinctly summarized in Isa53:10-12. Unfortunately, half of the text is not in the Hebrew, and the 'respectable' translations you find won't use the LXX which the Lord Himself and the apostles all used ("LXX" means "70", a moniker designating how many folks (really 72) made this Greek Old Testament from the Hebrew circa 273BC; its source Hebrew text is older than what we have.) Hence this webpage amalgamates both texts so you can see why the two texts ought to be combined. Biggest reason: All Bible writers use the LXX to 'tap' (incorporate by reference) Isaiah 53. The chapter as a whole and especially the LXX portions of verses 10-12 are used as a sort of Grand Central Station (hub) for all the NT; the Lord was constantly referring to it in the Gospels (i.e., in the wedding parable, the shameful treatment of the prophets and messengers, Bread of Heaven, etc). Every time I open up the NT in BibleWorks I find yet another 'access', no matter what I'm looking for. That Isaiah wrote circa 700BC is beside the point; everyone always knew the essential contract clauses of Isa53:10-12. But it was given to Isaiah, to display the entire contract succinctly in the proper Marital metaphor. Which you cannot see, in translation. For anything dealing with sex, makes everyone nervous (excites the genetic desire to sew figleaves, like Adam did after his fall). Oh well.
So of course no translation gets Isa53 right enough: passage is rife with rape-and-pillage-cause-of-pregnancy metaphor, which continues through at least the end of Isa55. The most famous of the Greek plays is "Ion", by Euripedes, which is a myth of the origin of the Greek Sea Peoples, and has a lot in common with Genesis 3-6. So this format chosen in Isa53, which of course was originally written in Hebrew (and elegantly, wittily, sometimes crass, as here in Chap53) -- well, it tweaks that myth. Maybe that's why Paul makes both the play and Isa53 his founding framework in crafting Ephesians, which is about God's Superior Begetting Plan. Paul has no qualms about being crass if it makes the Word clear to the hearer.
And why is that? BECAUSE THE ENTIRE ISA53-55 IS A PREGNANCY METAPHOR as a result of which you get the WORD in you. That's it, because that's how our Sins Were Paid On the Cross: by His Thinking. He was 'made pregnant' with our sins, so we can be Born From Above, John 3:3, 7. "Born Again" isn't really the right translation, but "from above" -- which you need to know, to see the up-up-up-sweet-savor-of-His-Thinking-to-God-sacrifice rhetoric which Isaiah uses.. and John 3 references. Idea that His Thinking went 'above', so now you down here can be 'born from above' to go up above to Heaven when you die. Beautiful wordplay like that is typical in every Bible verse. Translations bland it all out, putting the reader to sleep and confusion. Oh well.
For example, the first two Hebrew words in Isa53:11, me amal, are the preposition "min" (OUT FROM, BORN FROM) + "labor". This is a deliberate parallel to be-motayw (=in His DEATHS, plural, reversing the plural deaths (moth tamuth) in Gen2:17 curse!) in v.9. The deaths (substitutionary spiritual, and physical) correspond to war and pregnancy. Isaiah bluntly says that He BIRTHS RICHES/SPOIL/PLUNDER by means of His Thinking on the Cross, in Isa53:10-12. Regarding me amal in v.11, amal=pregnant labor in the Bible, with stress on the grief: Job and Psalms make frequent analogies using amal as painful pregnancy (in labor) -- but will you find any lexicon admit that usage of the term? Guess again. (Search "amal" in the Masoretic text and see for yourself; then compare to the lexicons.)
So, it's not surprising that no translation of the verse even references out-from or pregnant labor (though Louis Seconde comes close). So you miss the BELLY-FULL DELIVERY wordplay Isaiah makes, which is a play on the sexual act, and SIMULTANEOUSLY on the Mercy Seat of Propitiation! [Hebrew "sabea" in Isa53:11 often has the root meaning of satisfaction due to EATING FOOD. Compare that meaning to the "sweet savor" metaphor used of God's satisfaction of the sacrifices, and you'll get a fabulous thrill out of Heb10, Isa55 and Matt4:4.] Therefore, you don't get the entire chapter's import, and Isa54:1 seems to come from nowhere. See also Isa9:6, where "Father" is Christ as the BIRTHER of our salvation.
Another quick tipoff: the deliberate SUBSTITUTING for the wife-who-makes-guilt (im tasim asham) in v.10's Hebrew. Hebrew changes the SEX of the verb "sim" to FEMALE SUBJECT, but no translation picks that up. Superficially, "soul" in that verse is a FEMININE noun in Hebrew, so it's EASY to miss the double-entendre: not only is He caused to be sick (heheli) because His Soul made sin (im tasim asham naphesho) -- see also 2Cor5:21 -- but ALSO, He is sick with love to DELIVER her who MADE the sin (im tasim asham). Therefore His Soul shall see long-lived offspring despite v.8 (having no physical descendants), etc. Therefore, v.12, Father GIVES Him the many offspring, with whom He distributes His Inheritance, etc. Parallel passages are (for example) in Heb 2 and Eph5, referencing CHURCH; many OT passages use the same substitutionary-spiritual-death explanation with Israel as the 'wife'. All of Ephesians is on this topic, primarily: Paul tweaks Euripedes' play "Ion" (famous how-Greeks-were-birthed-from-Apollo myth) as his format-of-exposition, to show God's superior begetting.
Another reason translations are necessarily goofy: the LXX and Masoretic text differ! Bauer Danker lexicon seems troubled by LXX's v.11. Unfortunately, it considers the troublesome passage to mean in English, "shew Him the Light" -- um, but He Is The Light Already. So that can't be a proper translation. More than one use of the dative, and clearly that usage doesn't apply, here. Dative case is used as a CONDUIT, too. Like in, "via Him". Like in, all things to and through and for and by Him and apart from was not anything made that was made. And "Light" is quintessential Hebrew term, for the Light of the Word (referencing Moses' shining face). Moreover, "phos" is the SAME CASE in nominative and accusative, but putting it last next to autoi stresses Who is the Light, and stresses the Fact of Light (in Greek you usually put the stress at the end of the sentence). The Light becomes the Light of Humanity, get it? Circle of Light? So... um, maybe this 'problem verse' is really gold, unmined?
If I didn't see Paul so often refer to the LXX MEANING in v.11 (viz., as underpinning for Paul's frequent refrain about how He we get MADE from His Thinking); if I didn't see so many other Scripture writers use the LXX keywords in direct reference to these infinitives (etc), I'd not be so bold to argue, in this page: after all, I'm just a no-account student in the Word, not a respectable scholar. But Eph4:5-16 have v.11 and 12 in the LXX as their entire base; so does Rom12:3 (blows me away!), all of 1Cor2, Eph1. See, it's All About Plunder Of His Thinking. Hebrew text says that too, but the LXX is more detailed about how it works, and is STILL written in Hebraic couplet style (pairing verbs, at least). It's this added detail which Paul and the other writers of Scripture, keep on talking about. Voluminously. Quick proof: Isa53:10 has katharizw as an infinitive. John picks it up in the famous 1Jn1:9. Verb is used in the LXX for purifying the TEMPLE, and in the BODY passage of Isa53, the BODY is purified. That was NEVER true for the OT believers. They were never totally purified; the purification would come THROUGH Christ: see Heb 10.
For now, note that these five infinitives, are in vv.10-11: purify, plunder, exhibit, sculpt, justify. The ABSENCE of prepositions, how the phrases auton tes plages, autoi phos, and apo tou ponou..autou, act adverbially -- leaves the infinitives without stated object, so the infinitives ARE the objectives; so are sweeping in scope. All-comprehensive Decree Purpose, fully fulfilled, theme of Eph1. Clever use of prepositions underscores how we were Disconnected Until Connected In Him. No prepositions underscores how He didn't deserve to be punished, how He IS the Light, so obviously isn't the one in need of either -- but Substitutes For Those Who Are In Need, us. Awesome genius of language expression!
Note also how aphelein, to carry off/plunder, mistakenly classified as part of v.10 (verses markers were invented in the 11th or 12th century to make Bible easier to track), is paralleled with anaphero, the verb ending v.11 -- to carry off/ lift up. Paul seems to be bluntly referencing this parallel as well as Ps68:18 when he pens Eph4:8-9, since the latter passage is about PLUNDER. You could say David is referencing what we know as the LXX of 53:11 as well, in his Ps68:18. For PLUNDER is in v.11, so REPEATED in v.12. Not only in v.12's BHS. Which, absent the LXX's 53:11, you don't have a parallel. Hebrew loves to couple verses, but this v.12 isn't coupled, in the BHS. It's not normal. Every other concept is paralleled. So we know the Masoretic for verses 10 and 11, is incomplete.
Moreover, infinitives denote OBJECTIVE, purpose, result (yet seem to stress REALITY/ SUCCESS of the outcome). Then you have really cool multiple-entendre datives to explain HOW's, with clear intent that the reader understand all this booty is manufactured OUT OF CHRIST HIMSELF, and FOR Christ Himself; but the translations are always weird, because they restrict the meaning of the dative to that of the indirect object. As we'll see later on, Paul uses these datives in his epistles in different ways, exploiting all the uses of the dative; which 'just happen' to tie back to 53:11 in the LXX.
Oh: "Light" in v.11 is in some of the old Hebrew texts, but not the Massoreh. Isaiah scroll has it. So that's one more clue that the LXX text needs to be amalgamated with the Hebrew.
Here's the color scheme for the text below: Italic text denotes text in Massoreh but not LXX; CAPPED words are corrections of the translation versus what's published 'out there' (i.e., Brenton's English is a translation of the LXX, and isn't good here). Red denotes text already in the Masoretic or Isaiah scroll which is essentially the same in meaning, as in the LXX; blue signifies the LXX words which the Hebrew needs but lacks; Purple designates keywords to interpretation in BOTH texts which are generally mistranslated and therefore not properly recognized; secondly, the purple text which is in the LXX, employs sophisticated usage of the dative case, but is not recognized as such, despite the fact that the NT frequently makes sophisticated use of case endings, especially in wordplay or when a circular (Divine-to-human) function is illustrated (i.e., subjective and objective genitive 'circle' in all "Love of God" verses, which has the same wry usage in Latin).
Seems to me the 'working' translation of vv10-12 should go something like this (sacrificing elegance for clarity):
[Verse 11] Then the LORD [again, Father] delights to PLUNDER
Then, to SCULPT [in His Image, really] via His MASTERY-Of-THINKING, [sculpt is verb plassw, used for Heb yatser, play on the first two words, idea of fetal formation and consequent birth] so to make Righteous/JUSTIFY; The Righteous One Well-Serving [<--Drama accusative? Participle! No verbs in this clause! Double-entendre of how it's Righteous to award Him, so righteous to replicate His thinking..] purposed for/ instead of the many: even their sins, He will carry off/ lift up."
[Verse 12] "For this reason HE WILL INHERIT THE MANY; in fact, He will apportion the plunder among the great ones; for the sake of which [plunder] His Own Soul was given over to Death; then He was accounted among the lawbreakers; then He carried off/ lifted up the sins of the many; in fact, on account of their sins, He was given up." [ Verb paradidomi ( "given..given" is twice used, and double-entendre. Verb ALSO means to give over in the sense of ENTRUST or PROTECT, HAVE CHARGE OF. So by Him being given over to judgement, He comes to be in CHARGE of judgement, i.e., Rev20:11ff and the Bema. Cute.]
Now, let's compare 53:12 in the BHS (Hebrew OT, standard text used in Bible publishing):
Here's how my pastor rendered this v.12's BHS: "I will distribute to Him the spoils/plunder of Victory because of many believers; then He shall distribute the spoils with the great ones [meaning, inter alia, Pleroma believers -- only the GREAT BELIEVERS are here in view]; because He poured out His Soul to death..." Rest of the verse is similar enough. [Translation source: L.25, Gen '75 tapes. In Bibleworks, "Full Brown Driver Briggs" #4, Beth pretii, and #5, causal usage of Heb prep "be", also. I've yet to go through my pastor's taped exegesis of Isaiah verse by verse.]
Frankly, except for 1st vs. third person in v.10 and v.12, I see no material difference between LXX and BHS; the verses could EASILY BOTH be the text, presuming that what's in ONE of the texts, is missing from the other. In v.12, it fits EASILY if the BHS were the FIRST part (Father's Decree), and LXX, the second (what would happen, typical Hebrew style of repeating but changing a LITTLE bit to add more insight). Verses 10-11 are more patchwork. But do you notice how there is NO CONTRADICTION? Hebrew repeating style always works like this. Doesn't seem right to only publish a translated BHS, which is the norm in Bible publishing of OT.
Moreover, once you see the rhetorical STYLE of this v.10, you know how to spot it ELSEWHERE in Bible -- hundreds of passages, all quotes or comments between Father and Son, and it's an ANTIPHONY, one side speaks and the other replies, like in Psalms, a Jewish music style (suddenly I remember my pastor talking about that years ago); like in music or worship. David sure recognized it in Ps110:1, and plays on the words! Clearly Isaiah is recognizing it here.
What we miss when we don't study Bible! How is it possible to claim Trinity is hard to see in the OT? Even scholars say so? But look: you always leave out what the audience already knows. And you use wordplay, BECAUSE they already know, so they can ENJOY the wordplay. Like David does, in Ps110:1.
The reason he leaves out prepositions, is Hebraic: all prepositions point to Him (viz., Col1:16 uses that Hebraic concept). Prepositions are left out in elliptical writing, since the case endings are there: especially, in Hebrew, but also in Greek. (We do it in English, too.) And, since the accusative case is here used, the reader is expected to INSERT all prepositions which can take the accusative, to see more meaning. For example, with eis you have because of, resulting in, resulting from, to the place of, etc. You can then take accusative uses of epi and dia, etc. You can do the same with tes plages, using genitive prepositions. Lot more meaning shows up in the verse which fits the context, if you do. So to put a preposition in, would be LIMITING an UNLIMITED meaning. Hence the bigger-font translation above of the third clause, was chosen, which is limiting because it doesn't SHOW what the many meanings of the deliberately-missing, prepositions. God's Thought is SO AWESOME!
Look at the whole of Isa53:10-12 in the LXX and note how the prepositions are used, and what they are. John does this same crafting with prepositions in 1Jn, so I bet this is a Hebraic use of Greek in the entire Bible. Key is to restrict what prepositions you use to the contextual stress you wish to convey. 1Jn's stress, is "abiding", so an in-ness, so he uses in-ness prepositions, and avoids them, else. Here in Isa53:10, the author BUILDS UP to a crescendo of prepositions, in v.12. It's only peri, in v.10; only apo, in v.11, but in v.12, it's dia (idiomatically used, the first time), twice at beginning and end; in between (in order) are anti, eis, en. Wow. See the meaning: because of this! Due to This! Through This One! SUBSTITUTING FOR! Instead of! On Behalf of! Resulting in! Resulting from! Destination! In In By agency of by means of! Him! My pastor has stressed a bizillion times that you must TRACK THE PREPOSITIONS, for they are all-important, in the text. Wow. Yeah, it's deliberate, alright. So when he LEAVES OUT prepositions, he means you to put in ALL WHICH COULD apply. Which you'll be alerted to, since constructions like auton tes plages, etc. make MUCH more, perfectly, multiple-layered sense, when you do. Okay, I need to faint now from recognition; sorry, gotta pause, I can't breathe...
Next, dikaion eu douleuonta pollois doesn't even USE a preposition, and uses the DATIVE rather than the genitive (you'd expect a genitive if huper was in ellipsis). Ionic dative is "for the purpose of", which is even STRONGER than mere subsitution, the idea that whoever is dative, is a donative TO the "dikaion", the Hero -- which I bet is meant, else v.12 wouldn't be so climactic. Even more, NO SEPARATION between Hero-subject, and rescued object. HIM FOR THEM. Flat. Wow. See, this use of the infinitives and datives again probably all with Ionic 'purpose' meant, is FAR STRONGER. It's FOR HIM, and we come along for the ride. He's FOR US. No wonder Paul makes that wonderful Love circle analogy in 2Cor5.
What's REALLY interesting about the LXX of v.12 is "for the sake of which", meaning PLUNDER (skula, which is also neuter). Idea that He did it for Plunder. Christ as the MEANS AND MANNER AND AGENT, as well as the One in whose Interest (essential meaning of dative) the action of the infinitive is performed. All those meanings of the dative amalgamate and crescendo, here. What really tipped me off to this meaning of Plunder being His Thinking was the use of metron and meros in the NT. The terms are FREQUENT, and always link back to 53:11's LXX wording.
Moreover, Isaiah 53:11's placing His Title as "The Righteous One Well-Serving" right next to "the many", AND putting "the many" in the DATIVE CASE (especially considering the prior datives in the passage) -- the manufacturing of His Thinking INTO the many is plainly stated as an intent. You sculpt stone, see. You mold THINKING, see. Clearly the term isn't meant for PHYSICALLY making us. Hence all of Romans 8, picks up from Isa53:11. In his Ionic Greek dative of Eph2:10, Paul likewise uses proximity to stress this Thinking-Achievement relationship, with epi (upon Him as Foundation). Of course, reading Isa54-55, you get the same theme in either Masoretic or LXX texts.
Which theme Peter seems to be playing on, 1Pet3:18-20, and 1Pet1:3-4,2:5-6,9,21; of the latter grouping, verses 22-25 go on to deliberately CONNECT Isa53, so the latter grouping APPLIES and INTERPRETS the text in the LXX (Isa53:10-11), assuming my rough translation above is relatively accurate. 1Pet:2:21's 'copybook analogy' (in Greek, not English) to WRITE ON US Christ's Thinking can't be missed.
Of course, Interpretative quoting of Scripture (rather than word-by-word repetition) is a common feature by Scripture writers (i.e., Acts 2, Heb8:8-12 compared with Jer31:31-34 and Heb10:15-17), so this Peter passage is significant. Furthermore, Hebrews links Jer31:31-34 to Isa53 to Ps110:1 as the foundation for the entire epistle: read it with the foregoing verses in mind, see for yourself. (Repeated here are added corroborative cites in NoWombLife.htm: "Paul seems to frequently allude to Isa53 as if it were the 'Grand Central Station' of Scripture, and with good reason. James does the same thing in James 1. The Lord of course does it in John 3, Matt4:4 (linking Isa53 to Deut8:3-4 and Isa55:8,11). Wow: one could write an entire website on this topic alone, showing the many ties in Corinthians (which is LOADED with allusions as a subtheme, tying to 1Cor2:16, which ties to Isa53:11's Hebrew and (later epistle) Phili2:5-10); Colossians; Ephesians; Romans 5-9 (esp. 6, end 7 and 8:11ff); 1Peter1; all of 2Pet (Peter's God-given allotment of Ephesians' content?); Hebrews Chaps 2, last half 9, and Chaps 10-11; also, "riches" and "seed" verses."]
Here, it looks like ADDITIONAL text is missing from the Masoretic. Perhaps in LXX of Isa 53:10, where God speaks in 1st Person in LXX, that should FOLLOW the Masoretic v.10. Seems that whole LXX verse should be APPENDED to the Masoretic. Then, the UNDERLINED parts of LXX v.11, are like puzzle pieces missing from the Masoretic of v.11; the WHOLE of the LXX verse, clues us into where those 'pieces', fit. Next, perhaps also in v.12 where in Masoretic, God is speaking in 1st person, is meant to be followed by the LXX verse speaking in 3rd person: at least, from "dia touto" through "thanatov", as a Hebrew closing parallel of a thing being done, to parallel also v.11's "aphelein" purpose, as compared to Father's WILL to do it (which the first clause in the Masoretic, stresses). Antiphonal, see (like the Psalms). Antiphony is an extremely common feature of OT verses, when depicting Father-Son interaction. GOD PRESERVED BOTH TEXTS. Here, we see something of the reason, WHY.
So let's NEXT COMBINE the Masoretic and LXX texts to see how the AMALGAM might look. I'll use the NASB for the Masoretic, where possible; the NASB color is black, so the LXX will be enough distinguished. Where the NASB translation is TOO FAR off versus the MASORETIC text, I'll just fix it, and denote that via capitalized italics. (Note: some of the words in NASB had to be deleted, because they were TRANSLATOR assumptions -- here, the usually-good assumptions aren't correct. NASB often, but not always, denotes these assumptions with italics.)
Isaiah 53:10 "But the LORD was DELIGHTED to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see SEED CAUSED TO BE LONG OF DAYS, and the DELIGHT of the LORD will CAUSE His Hand TO PROSPER. [Verse 10, LXX] So the LORD delights to purify by wounding Him: 'if You will give as a substitute for sin, Your [Plural] Soul[singular] will see long-lived seed.'"
Isaiah 53:11 "Then the LORD delights to PLUNDER,BIRTHING/CARRYING OUT FROM His Soul's LABOR to display/ point out/ make known/ exhibit via Him, the Light. Then, to sculpt via His Mastery-of-Thinking, so to make Righteous/justify. He will see, be satisfied. [7th day idea!] BECAUSE OF His TRUTH-knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities. The Righteous One Well-Serving purposed for/ instead of the many: even their sins, He will carry off/ lift up."
Isaiah 53:12 "THEREFORE I WILL DISTRIBUTE TO HIM THE SPOILS/PLUNDER OF VICTORY BECAUSE OF THE MANY , And He will divide the booty with the GREAT ONES; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. "FOR THIS REASON He will inherit the many; in fact, He will apportion the PLUNDER among the great ones; for the sake of which [PLUNDER] His Own Soul was given over to Death."
See HOW MUCH CLEARER is the passage's meaning? Now the Masoretic text and the LXX, FIT. The common NT feature of interpretative quoting, as noted earlier, is all over the OT as well; so to put LXX's v.10, the INTERPRETATION quote, right after the v.10 MASORETIC it references, makes sense. (If you're not familiar with interpretative quotes, get a study Bible and compare the verses quoted in the NT, with the actual OT verses: the Lord, Satan and every NT writer often interpretatively quote, so you can pick any section of NT you like. Once you see the RHETORICAL STYLE, you can spot it more easily in the OT. NASB has the nice habit of capitalizing quotes, so its text is particularly easy to search.)
Notice how the AMALGAM merely deletes the truly repeated clauses. Even so, not much got deleted: "out from His Soul's labor" was in both texts. ("Out from" is Hebrew preposition min, but it is used STANDING ALONE in wordplay, as an idiom for birth; preposition is always mistranslated when birthing is the intended meaning. Sample is Gen3:22, and a verse in Ps139, many others.) Maybe it was meant in dramatic repetition, so should be left in. The only other clause, the remainder of v.12 in the LXX, was also cut out, which was identical in meaning to its Masoretic counterpart, except for use of paradidomi -- then again, maybe paradidomi makes it necessary to repeat the entire clause. So see? BOTH texts had pieces missing, but when you combine them, it's beautiful and FAR more clear what's said! Heh. God never misses a thing, boy: look how He preserved BOTH texts!
So, then: because Hebrew exposition often repeats verbs and clauses, and then combines them differently IN WORDPLAY to explain (a mnemonic device also used by Paul, e.g., in Romans), it's not at all certain that similar words in LXX vv10-12 are meant to REPLACE their Hebrew counterparts in the same verses. Better guess is that many of the LXX words, are ADDITIONAL, appositive. Especially since the LXX IS OLDER, and was USED BY the Lord and the NT writers, and particularly the 53:11 UNDERLINED parts are TIED TO by NT writers (especially but not only by Paul) -- the LXX should be given more creedence than it gets.
So where there are SEEMING differences between BHS and LXX, those ought to be accounted, harmonized and PUT INTO TRANSLATION, in case some hidden treasure is there. Like everyone else, my pastor also prefers generally to use the Masoretic text, because we all know how the Jews carefully preserve it (thank God!) -- but it makes even more sense that sections of verses got lost over the 600 or so years between the LXX and the later Masoretic copies we have.