-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Septuagint
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
Not always meaning God's Name. Matthew 22:44.
37818
Well-Known Member
I am persuaded the New Testament Greek of the Old Testament confirms Septuagint translation where it agrees with the Hebrew original autographs.
Well, yea, if it’s good enough for Christ and the Apostles…
37818
Well-Known Member
What I am arguing is, the New Testament Greek of the Old Testament quotes are a confirmation of Old Testament reading of it's autographs.
K.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
There is also a case for “perfect translation” in OT quotes. If God said it the way He meant it in Hebrew and restated it in Greek, then we have a Hebrew to Greek translation by the author.
Then we get into which manuscripts are accurate, if necessary.
37818
Well-Known Member
An original New Testament quote of an Old Testament Hebrew passage.
Even a KJV-only advocate Lawence Bednar in effect seems to agree that there would be a possible dilemma between the KJV’s NT and the KJV’s OT, casting doubt on inerrancy, without the old Greek Septuagint. Lawrence Bednar declared that “the finalized KJB text is inerrant” (Case, p. 102), showing that he is KJV-only. Lawrence Bednar noted: “Some bible-believers doubt an LXX existed before the church era, thinking oldest extant 4th century LXX manuscripts just repeat New Testament quotes of the Old. But that doesn’t explain why New Testament quotes differ from the Masoretic, casting doubt on New Testament inerrancy. It doesn’t explain 2nd-3rd century LXX-type translations by Jews to combat church use of LXX Christology (the Theodotion, Symmachus & Aquila texts). Agreement of the New Testament and LXX testifies of an authoritative amplified LXX-type Hebrew text, and New and Old Testament inerrancy require this authoritative text” (Inerrancy, p. 28).
Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The LXX Hebrew text gave, and the New Testament preserved, Christology vital to churches” (p. 31). Lawrence Bednar asserted: “The New Testament is an inerrant resource preserving some original LXX renderings” (p. 57). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The hand of Providence appears, the Greek Christological LXX being a forerunner of New Testament revelation soon to spread to Greek-speaking Christians in the geographical areas of Greek-speaking Hebrews for whom the LXX was made” (p. 108). Lawrence Bednar suggested: “The Lucianic-type text, [also know as the Antiochian Septuagint] not the Vaticanus, seems to be the authoritative Old Testament of the early church” (p. 106). Lawrence Bednar claimed: “The earliest revered LXX likely was a Lucianic-type text without apocrypha” (p. 110).
Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The LXX Hebrew text gave, and the New Testament preserved, Christology vital to churches” (p. 31). Lawrence Bednar asserted: “The New Testament is an inerrant resource preserving some original LXX renderings” (p. 57). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The hand of Providence appears, the Greek Christological LXX being a forerunner of New Testament revelation soon to spread to Greek-speaking Christians in the geographical areas of Greek-speaking Hebrews for whom the LXX was made” (p. 108). Lawrence Bednar suggested: “The Lucianic-type text, [also know as the Antiochian Septuagint] not the Vaticanus, seems to be the authoritative Old Testament of the early church” (p. 106). Lawrence Bednar claimed: “The earliest revered LXX likely was a Lucianic-type text without apocrypha” (p. 110).
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Is the error in the words used? Are we talking about two different words that mean the same thing or are we talking about errors that change meanings?
If I quote the NWT, does that mean I am stipulating that part of the NWT is accurate? No of course not. If a NT inspired writer quotes the LXX, does mean the LXX that portion of the LXX is now inspired? No, of course not. Evangelists use illustrations familiar with their audience to convey truth. The people reading their Greek letters would be able to read the LXX. Ditto for also quoting the Hebrew text rather than the LXX for those familiar with the Hebrew text. When you see an OT quote or paraphrase, focus on how the NT writer is interpreting the text.
Are there any?
37818
Well-Known Member
Matthew 27:46, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? . . . . Psalm 22:1 Hebrew is cited by Matthew. Mark 15:34, ,has Jesus speaking it in the Aramaic.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
What I had in mind was where the New Testament Old Testament quotes corrects the Hebrew with the New Testament Greek, such as in Hebrews 10:5, . . . saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: . . .
For Psalm 40:6.