Septuagint and God’s Word

the KJB1611's translators certainly believed in the existence of the Septuagint n its preservation of God's Word.

their brilliant modern KJBO advocates don't.

 

Nope,there is no evedence of a pre-Christian LXX.In short,there is no Greek Old Testament written earlier than 100 years AFTER the completion of the New Testament canon.

No.

They were wrong.

Nope!!

Why is a mystical,non-existant,Greek Old-Testament written(supposedly)before the time of Christ such a big issue with MV advocates? I have seen posts on this board by people that say a translation could NOT be inspired;the LXX would be a TRANSLATION of Hebrew into Greek.If no translation is inspired,then why all the hoopla about somthing that is a translation of the original languages? In short,no one has ever produdce one verse or part of a verse from a pre Christian Greek Old-Testament that the Apostles or whoever quoted.

 

They were wrong.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and JYD knows more about Bible history and translation issues than all the KJV translators put together. Uh, right.

 

Excuse me, but the Alexandrian LXX predates Christianity by about 200 years. The NT quotes that we cannot find in today's OT are in the Alexandrian LXX -- and yes, it was the Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles and the one quoted from by the NT writers.

My husband did a pretty good job of researching the text types a number of years ago to find out what was going on. Here:
http://www.setterfield.org/scriptchron.htm#versions

Please take the time to read it. Check the charts near the end of the section, too.

 

Onlies can't abide the idea of Christ and the Apostles using the LXX because it would destroy their postion. The LXX differs somewhat dramatically (in places) from the received Hebrew text.

Andy

 

Why would a bunch of Jews use greek manuscripts,
There is as much chance of that happening as there is of them having a good ole southern pig picking!

 

for the same reason a buncha Southerners wldn't read the Hebrew OT.

altho some might, those literate 'uns

 

They would use Greek manuscripts for the exact same reason the NT was written in Greek.

 

I see no reason to conjecture about Christ having used the Septuagint. His own words in the NT indicate He used and fully accepted the Hebrew OT and its canon. In one place He talked about jots and tittles. That had reference to the law in the Hebrew OT. Then in one instance He referred to the slaying of righteous Abel and Zacharias, Luke 11:51. The Zacharias in question was not to be found in Malachi's book, which is the last book in the OT as we know it. The Hebrew OT of the Jews had some other book as last book, and Zacharias was to be found in that one (2Chronicles to be specific). Abel was mentioned in the first book of the Jewish OT, Bereshith (Genesis).

Then in a third instance when Christ referred to the OT He repeated the Jewish order of books, beginning with the Law, then prophets, then lastly Psalms. Luke 24:44.

By the mouth of two or three witnesses...


Thus it appears some of you are nothing but a bunch of amateurish liars, who have trusted some lying scribes (scholars, "doctors" etc.). Shame on you dishonest knaves.


Harald

 

Well I know this much:


1)The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture were the Levites,according to Deuteronomy 17:18;31:25-26,and Malichi 2:7.

2)God ordered his name NOT to be spoken of in the land of Egypt by the Jews,Jeremiah 44:26.

3)No extant copies of the mysterious LXX can be produced that was compiled any earlier than 200 A.D.

4)The 72 Jewish(Jeremiah 44:26)scholars would have had to ADD the Popish Apocryphal books to this non-existant,pre-Christian Greek Old Testament BEFORE they were even written.

5)According to Jeremiah 44:26,Philo,Aquilla,and Symmachus had no buisness in Egypt.

6)No one has yet to produce one Manuscript written before the time of Christ that is a pre-Christian Greek old testament.

7)The LXX was PLAINLY an attempt by the indiviguals in Romans 11:20-25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to replace the inspired "oracles of God" with the conjectures of Alexandrian Greek philosophy.

 

So what are the earliest dates we have for pure hebrew scriptures? Not any older! Except, perhaps, for the dead sea scrolls, which often tend to show variations from the Masoretic text that are consistent with the Septuagint.

 

True. Yet there are places where he quotes the OT, and it more closely matches the LXX than the Masoretic.

Booooo! Why do these discussion always turn into the ad hominem crap?!?

And what does this have to do with the existence of a pre-Christ LXX?

And what does this have to do with the existence of a pre-Christ LXX?

So? No extant copies of the OT or NT can be produced that were compiled any earlier than this either. The earliest extant copy of something does not determine its origin date. In other words, extant copies are COPIES (wow, that's profound) of something earlier.

Don't be silly. Apocryphal books were added to the LXX later, as they were written.

Funny, I don't see anything about those men, nor their business, mentioned in that verse.

Even if this were true (which I'm not sure it is), see response to question 3.

Ah... speculation, lousy exegesis, and faulty conclusions all rolled into one. KJV-only evidence at its finest.

 

All the OT was given by inspiration of God, in the Hebrew tongue, and some little in Aramaic. It was given to the Jewish people. They were also its custodians, chiefly the Levites. I recently read that about the oldest copies of the Hebrew OT available date from about 895 AD. The copy in question goes by the name of codex Cairensis, containing the Prophets (Holland). This is not taking the Dead Sea Scrolls into consideration. The Leningrad codex, dates to about 1008 AD, it is the oldest Masoretic Hebrew OT manuscript and containts the whole Hebrew OT. The reason there is no very old Hebrew OT copies is most probably because the Jewish custodians of the oracles of God were obligated to destroy copies that were beginning to show signs of deterioration. When some manuscript was still in good condition it was copied before it had gone bad. The system of the Jewish copyists was most rigid, therefore the Hebrew OT has been so well preserved. The traditional masoretic text (the Ben Chayyim text) is said to agree very well with the Qumran texts, and also with the Leningrad codex, which is the base of the Biblia Hebraica. This is why there has not been much debate concerning the Hebrew OT texts like as there has been respecting the text of the Greek NT, i.e. TR vs. the corrupted Alexandrian codices and texts.

Harald

 

Talk about amateurish lying, this is absurd. The Hebrew text is in very poor condition in some places. It has suffered much more from conjectures and confusion than the NT. The reason it is not very often talked about is because first because most people have never taken time to learn it and it is way too difficult for people who do not know anything to talk about it. I wish Greek were this way because we would be better off if those who do not know anything would shut up. The second reason is because there is no great dispute because there are not multiple traditions of manuscript preservation. There is only one. It makes it hard to divide people when everyone uses the same basic text.

What we need is a good dose of honesty and a putting aside of amateurish lies.

There is pre Christian evidence of a Greek translation. To say there is not is simply untrue. This evidence is open, to some degree, to interpretation. It is not open to denial. Christ and the apostles oftentimes quote from something that resembles the LXX more than it does the Hebrew. That gives additional evidence that the LXX existed in the first century. There is no reason to doubt the existence of the LXX. In fact, among those who know, it is rarely doubted. Someone who doubts the existence of the BC LXX is generally considered uninformed.

For those who complain about aramaic speaking Jews using a 200 year old testament in a language that they do not speak, now you understand why some of us prefer something other than teh KJV. We do not find it beneficial to use a 400 year translation in a language that we no longer speak. So your argument against the LXX works against yourself.

 

The compilers of the non-existant pre-Christian LXX were supposed to be Jews;remember?

Those fellows were JEWISH .It has everything to do with Jeremiah 44:26!

 

Have you ever studied the context of Jeremiah 44 to see what Jeremiah was actually talking about????? Too many people depend on their favorite preacher or teacher instead of looking at the text. That leads to the gross misuse of Scripture that we see very often by the KJVOs. To misuse Scripture is a grievous sin. To make God appear to be saying something he never said is to change the word of God. It should not be done under any circumstances, no matter how grand your cause, no matter how heartfelt your belief.

 

Why would the JEWS make a translation of the scriptures for the DOGS?
I can understand AFTER the time of Paul but it makes no sense for them to do this for those they would not even eat with or allow into the inner area of the temple.
What would they do? Read Greek text in the temple?
Why would there be a need for a Greek Old Testament at that time?

 

Because they didn't know Hebrew. Remember what happened as a part of the dispersion?

 

Whoa,whoa,whoa!!! You condem the KJB translators of violating revelation 22:19;but you seem as though it is OK for them(whoever it was) to ADD the RCC's NON-INSPIRED books to the LXX..(like there ever was one before Christ)

Ladies and Gentlemen,I present to you the amazing,and everchanging double standard!!!