What OT Bible Did Jesus/Apostles Use?

The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true?

 

The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true? </font>[/QUOTE]Doubt it. Doubt it very strongly. Ransom said nothing to suggest such a notion. The LXX is an OT version. The OT does not (or at least is not normally held to) "quote from the NT".

Haruo

 

I have to agree with Haruo's last 2 posts and I like to add that when I was talking about little differences between versions, I wasn't talking about scribal errors, but about real differences, most of whom probably already existed in various Hebrew OT's before the LXX was translated. Many of those also show up in the Dead Sea scrolls which are written in Hebrew.

 

You can bet it was from the correct line of manuscripts;not the corrupt Egyptian line of manuscripts.Not even from the "fairy tale for grown ups" known as the LXX..

 

The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No, the NT quotes from teh LXX. To say that there was no BC LXX is simply incorrect. It may not have been identical to the LXX that is popular today but there can be no serious denial that a Greek translation of the OT existed. To deny it is to reveal one's ignorance on this matter.

 

You can bet it was from the correct line of manuscripts;not the corrupt Egyptian line of manuscripts.Not even from the "fairy tale for grown ups" known as the LXX.. </font>[/QUOTE]You have repeatedly shown a total lack of knowledge. You have no credibility to discuss this issue. Your only participation in this forum should be to ask questions about these things. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no answers.

In the OT, there is no "two lines of manuscripts." There is only one MT. Anyone familiar with the Hebrew OT knows this very simple fact. The OT text is quite different than the NT text. You should be familiar with this or you should take the time to learn, instead of making these ridiculous statements.

Secondly, there was a BC Greek translation of the OT. It is untrue to deny its existence.

I encourage you to adopt a position of learning so that these relatively simple matters can be cleared up in your mind. That way you can establish some credibility to speak on these issues.

 

Oh really?? I suppose just because you wear the title "pastor" that makes you super smart;right?

By who's standards?? Your's????

Oh,okay So I'm just supposed to set back and listen to half-baked ideas from people like you?? Gimme a break.

Granted,but there are CORRUPTED copies of it;creating TWO lines of OTs. Do you deny this???

No way!!!! What a revelation!!!

OK,I await your proof of a LXX that is earlier than 100 years AFTER the close of the NT canon.

You mean a position of learning like your's? Thanks,but no-thanks.I have egnough probems without that..

 

Oh really?? I suppose just because you wear the title "pastor" that makes you super smart;right?</font>[/QUOTE]It is not about being smart. It is about being right. Your posts shows that you are not right, that your are uninformed with basic facts. That is not the fault of anyone but yourself. We have repeatedly answered questions and shown you the facts.

By standards of common truth.

I have given your many breaks. I have often thought you were merely poorly taught. People who are poorly taught often repeat mistruths simply because they do not know any better. I am not asking you to set back anything. I am asking you to sit back and ask some questions and learn some things so that you do not continue down a path of false doctrine and leading others into it.

Yes, I deny that and anyone who knows the Hebrew text will deny that because it is not true. There are not two lines of Hebrews texts. OT textual transmission if far different than NT textual transmission. Again, these are basic truths that are available to anyone who wants to see them. Yo mock it with What a revelation!!! ... But your mocking only shows how vastly unfamiliar you are with basic facts.

These facts are given in many places. This is not rocket science. It doesn't take advanced degrees. This is not even questioned except among the fringe lunatic crowd of the KJVO side. The proof is seen in your NT in the quotations of the OT. The proof is seen in the historical documentation. The proof is available. But you have to be willing to learn.

So you want to continue in intentional ignorance?? That makes no sense. Why are you willingly ignoring the truth?? Why are you content to believe false doctrine and to mislead others?? That is inconceivable that someone who claims to love the truth can treat it so flippantly.

 

You contradict yourself with your statement above. Let me show you the comparsions on the LXX and the OT and the NT.

" And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Gen. 5:24 KJV) This is the Old Testament.

" And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him." (Gen. 5:24 LXX) This is the Old Testament.

" By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he please God." (Heb. 11:5) This is the New Testament.

I found a source for you to read the explanation here: At first glance it would seem that the NT passage in Hebrews chapter eleven is closer to the LXX than the OT Hebrew of Genesis chapter five. As we know, the NT was written in Greek, the OT in Hebrew. However, the Hebrew word for took in this passage is lawkakh which means to take or move from one place to another. The Greek way of saying the Hebrew lawkakh is methetheken which means translated. Dr. Charles Ryrie seems to agree with this. He writes, " He (Enoch) walked (lit., walked about, i.e. lived) with God, and instead of letting him die, God took him (the same Hebrew word is used for the translation of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:3,5; cf. Heb. 11:5)." (Ryrie Study Bible, p.15). This is not a citation of the LXX, but a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for took. Further, the student should notice that this verse is a statement of EVENTS found in Genesis five, not a QUOTATION of Genesis 5:24.

See the Website here:
LXX"]http://members.ozemail.com.au/~seccomn/biblever/lesson08.html]LXX passages[/URL]

You see this passages for an example that LXX quoted from the NT; therefore LXX was produced in AD, not BC.

 

Obviously.

Which you are not.

You have shown me nothing but your half-baked opinions,and the opinions of those like you.

No sir,not poorly taught,just properly grounded in the truth.Your posts only show your pious disregard for the truth;not to mention,lack of discernment.

Granted. But you probaly DO know better(Romans 1:18).

Pious,aren't we?

I think you know better(Romans 1:18)Your problem is you like the praises of men.(Colossians 3:22)

OK,humor me.Show me a BC LXX;You have done your talking,now produce a BC LXX.see Job 33:2-3.

I believe you are already there.(2 Thess 2:11)

 

I've been reading this duel between MV-neverest and Pastor Larry. I think that it is important to note the tone of each participant. Pastor Larry encourages one to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion based on this evidence. MV-neverest continually accuses and makes rude remarks concerning one's ability and motives. It is easy to see that only one of these parties should be taken seriously. You decide which one.

BTW, it is common knowledge among serious bible students that the LXX was written before the NT. To deny this is simply ludicrous.

 

Interestingly enough, you have yet to address even one of these "half-baked opinions" with a rebuttal. The opinions of those like me happen to be the opinions of virtually every single person who knows what they are talking about. The evidence for a BC LXX is so overwhelming that it is not even questioned by people who know what they are talking about.

The evidence is available. Start by reading teh ISBE article on teh LXX. YOu can obtain a number of other sources from various places that will show you the truth about this. You have been mislead by perhaps well-meaning people. But their intentions do not change the facts and that facts are that there was a Greek translation of teh OT prior to the time of Christ.

If you have comments on this topic, feel free to share them along with the support for them. There is no room for your personal attacks or your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

No, no! Not true! No one had the LXX in BC.

 

OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one.

 

Askjo,
Yes, Yes! It is true! They did have a pre-NT LXX!

 

OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one. </font>[/QUOTE]It's right with the other first century documents ... perished in history. But the evidence remains. The bottom line is still that the evidence is available. I have given you a starting point. Now, if you are honestly interested in the truth, start reading. Otherwise, drop out of the conversation. The problem with you (among others) is that you are not interested in the truth apparently. You are interested only in furthering your own misconceptions. Be honest and do the homework. If you do both of those, it will not be long until you realize how mislead you have been. If you are not willing to do that, then withdraw from these conversations. They are based on honesty and willingness to learn from one another. So far, you have shown no interest in that and it is distracting to those of us who are interested in it.

 

Ok, let's see, who are they?

 

OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one. </font>[/QUOTE]It's right with the other first century documents ... perished in history. But the evidence remains. The bottom line is still that the evidence is available. I have given you a starting point. Now, if you are honestly interested in the truth, start reading. Otherwise, drop out of the conversation. The problem with you (among others) is that you are not interested in the truth apparently. You are interested only in furthering your own misconceptions. Be honest and do the homework. If you do both of those, it will not be long until you realize how mislead you have been. If you are not willing to do that, then withdraw from these conversations. They are based on honesty and willingness to learn from one another. So far, you have shown no interest in that and it is distracting to those of us who are interested in it. </font>[/QUOTE]MV-neverist asked you, " WHERE is a BC LXX? You did not answer to this question. MV-neverist and I would like to see it. We need to see on your *evidence* concerning the LXX in BC.

 

Askjo, MV-neverist.
You want to see an example of LXX from before the birth of Christ? You are in luck!

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxpryl458.jpg
2nd bce (Deuteronomy 23-28)

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxx4qdeut.jpg
2nd bce (Deuteronomium 11)

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxx7qex.jpg
2nd/1st bce(Exodus 28)

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxx4qleva.jpg
+/- 100 bce(Leviticus 26)