Featured I have a dumb question....

Jesus or the NT writers never used the LXX they used a version that in places underlying the LXX Hebrew text

 

The LXX is a translation from the Hebrew OT, and therefore, like all translations, is uninspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not possible that God the Holy Spirit would have used the words of men, regardless of how good they may have been in rendering the Original Autographs, in the NT quotations. I believe that the Jesus and the NT writers used a version that is in some places quite like the LXX, though there are places in the NT, where the quotations from the OT, are neither from the LXX or MT, but are from the Aramaic and another Greek version.

 

Not saying that we can know, but the Greek Septuagint text can be compared to the Greek New Testament fairly easily. To compare the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, one will have to be translated into the other language (hopefully by one qualified to do so).

 

A translation is not exactly the words of men. Are you saying us speaking English, means no English speakers can have God's Word in English? Slightly limiting God's ability to get His Word out to all humanity? I doubt that thought (only the originals are inspired) is inspired by the Holy Spirit. What language were you using to think that thought in?

 

you obvioulsy don't understand about the Original Bible Autographs and "translations".

Firstly, the Holy Spirit ONLY "Breathed out" (Inspired) the Writers of the Originals.
Secondly, ALL translations are the words that are chosen by men, to represent the Original Words, with the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. When translating into any language, it can be difficult to get over the exact meaning of what was said.
Thirdly, ALL translations are not without any "errors", which are not in the Original Autographs

 

Well, first off we have to read in Greek, not English.

One of our seminary grads did some research, and the earliest writer he found who doubted that the NT quotes the LXX (Septuagint) was Peter Ruckman. No reputable Greek scholar doubts that the NT quotes the LXX. There is just too much evidence.

Having said that, the most interesting fact about this is that sometimes the NT does not quote the LXX, but the NT author retranslates from the Hebrew in order to get the OT's correct support of the point he is trying to make.

 

Scarlett O., here is an example of why people think the Septuagint is quoted by NT authors. This one is not Jesus, but Paul referring to Isaiah 29:14. However, I think it will at least partially show an example of the reasoning people have, though it may not exactly address your question. I have bolded the significant portion.

Isaiah 29:14
KJV translation from the Hebrew OT: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Brenton translation from the Greek OT: Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent.
1 Corinthians 1:19
KJV translation of Greek NT: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 1:19
Greek text from Brenton OT: διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ προσθήσω τοῦ μετατεθῆναι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ μεταθήσω αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω.
Greek text from [see below]: γέγραπται γάρ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω

It is not necessary in this example to be able to read to read the Greek with understanding to see that the characters of the NT Greek text duplicates the Septuagint Greek text. There is no question about that. One cannot argue that they do not match. The argument then that folks are making is about the how and why. For example (1) Paul quotes the Septuagint; or (2) Origen back-translated the Septuagint to match Paul's statement. I am not going to get into that argument, but what is above is an easy example to see that the Greek NT of this verse matches the Septuagint, at least as it has been preserved to the present.

[Note: Greek in 1 Corinthians 1:19 appears to be the same in 1550 Stephanus, 1881 Westcott-Hort, 1894 Scrivener, 2010 SBL, and 2017 Tyndale House, per Bible Gateway, except for superficial differences in markings, capitalization, and punctuation. So this should not be a question of variant texts here.]

 

“According to Paul Kahle, the non-LXX elements in NT quotations of the OT reflect written Greek targums widely used before the church adopted the LXX as its standard version of the OT (The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. [1959], 209 – 64). The mass of variant readings in MSS of the LXX —variants that Kahle uses along with the aberrant text of OT quotations in the NT to prove the existence of Greek targums—present a discernible pattern of development from an archetype, not a hodgepodge of unrelated variants from independent Greek targums. Furthermore, the DSS have shown that many of the variants in the Septuagintal MSS were the result of progressive assimilation to the Hebrew text of the OT, not the result of amalgamation of differing Greek targums utilized by NT writers.” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol.V)

 

You understand that as the person was speaking the words, a scribe was hearing them and using his own hand, placing letters on a scroll. Hearing and reading done by a scribe into the text is the exact same thing. If it were not, then the hand of the scribe writing was not inspired, according to you. The inspiration got lost in the breath as the words came out of the prophets mouth. Scripture never got to the page in letter form.

 

You sound very confused!

I believe that the Inspiration of the Original Autographs were Dictational

 

You seem to have claimed no written text can be inspired.

Thus we do not have a copy of God’s Word not even in the Hebrew and Greek text. Because the written word was never inspired once, nor can be in any language.

We do not have any manuscript that can be considered original to even compare to see if they are exact enough to be considered God’s Word.

 

So do you think that the Jehovah Witnesses versions are Inspired by the Holy Spirit? If not then why not? What criteria do you use to determine which version is Inspired

 

Think that some wpould not see the Apostles quoting the LXX in certain passages due to them saying that means the LXX was inspired also, but Jude quoting from Enoch, not an inspired book!

 

We only need one copy in a language. It is humans who think one copy is not "good enough" for then. Only God can know now which copy is inspired.

For the Holy Spirit to work though, God is not limited to Words on a page. There were a handful of English translations back during the Reformation. I am not going to judge which was the sole Inspired one.

That is not the point. The point was none of them could be. I thing that is the wrong view. We have several Greek translations as well. Which one of those is the Inspired one?

As for translations that make sweeping changes, of course they are not God's Word. God's Word is supposed to offend people. It is not supposed to be changed to make sinful carnal humans feel better.

 

Scarlett O., in looking back over this I notice it is not a "perfect" example, in that Paul uses a different word for hide (κρύψω). Paul uses ἀθετήσω, bring to nothing, set aside, do away with. Maybe I should have kept looking!

 

NO Translation is inspired, and the JW version is one of the very worst ones!

 

agree, do you think that the Lord and NT writers used the LXX, and if they did, then the OT quotes in the NT are UNINSPIRED!