• 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!

Christianity and how the bible was put together

Darron Steele

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
This interest me however. What do you mean that "it has the Pre-Christian portion of Scripture?" ...
I did not expect this to be complicated or in any way confusing. What I meant: the portion of Scripture that comes from before Christians -- what Christians call the Old Testament.

Thinkingstuff said:
Is it a copy or a pre christian text? Or is it the OT that the Jews use and have accepted as scripture? What do they have to show it is the only books allowed to be scripture? I mean all scripture except the NT is prechristian including the DC. But if you have something that is a text which is pre christian that only includes the 22 books I would be interested. details please. I mean I have access to a Tanakh as well. Is this what you're talking about?
Do not think too hard. A lot of this stuff you are overthinking is actually really simple.

All you needed to do is think `What does pre-Christian mean' and `What would pre-Christian portion of Scripture?' and there would have been no further need of all this other stuff.

This is one of those things you do that is such an annoyance. You take something that is simple, parse it for meanings far more complicated than intended, and go with anything but the plain and simple intended meaning. Then you expect people to deal with your wild imagination. This is a post I should not have had to bother writing.

I was only confirming for DHK that the Jewish Bible, which is the Old Testament, has the same contents as the Protestant Old Testament but arranges it such that 2 Chronicles is last. I was reporting for DHK what is in my copy of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation of pre-Christian Scripture: that it has the same contents as the Protestant Old Testament but arranges it such that 2 Chronicles is last. Nothing more.

A suggestion for you: stop overthinking when you read people's posts, and start merely listening.

By the way,
thinkingstuff said:
I mean all scripture except the NT is prechristian including the DC
It looks like you have made the decision to adopt the so-called "deutero-canonicals" as Scripture. "Deutero-canonical" means `pertaining to a second canon' meaning that those books were added. Are you still wanting to deny that you have made that decision? You denied making that decision just a few days ago. Are you ready to explicitly state that you are arguing for additions to the Old Testament?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Darron Steele said:
I did not expect this to be complicated or in any way confusing. What I meant: the portion of Scripture that comes from before Christians -- what Christians call the Old Testament.

Do not think too hard. A lot of this stuff you are overthinking is actually really simple.

All you needed to do is think `What does pre-Christian mean' and `What would pre-Christian portion of Scripture?' and there would have been no further need of all this other stuff.

This is one of those things you do that is such an annoyance. You take something that is simple, parse it for meanings far more complicated than intended, and go with anything but the plain and simple intended meaning. Then you expect people to deal with your wild imagination. This is a post I should not have had to bother writing.

I was only confirming for DHK that the Jewish Bible, which is the Old Testament, has the same contents as the Protestant Old Testament but arranges it such that 2 Chronicles is last. I was reporting for DHK what is in my copy of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation of pre-Christian Scripture: that it has the same contents as the Protestant Old Testament but arranges it such that 2 Chronicles is last. Nothing more.

A suggestion for you: stop overthinking when you read people's posts, and start merely listening.

By the way, It looks like you have made the decision to adopt the so-called "deutero-canonicals" as Scripture. "Deutero-canonical" means `pertaining to a second canon' meaning that those books were added. Are you still wanting to deny that you have made that decision? You denied making that decision just a few days ago. Are you ready to explicitly state that you are arguing for additions to the Old Testament?


I haven't adopted anything. I'm just questioning things. Such as the DC. For instance the DC are pre-christian. It seems by things I've reviewed that the OT was not yet set do to the use of a lot of other material both in the NT and the ECF. You said that you have a Jewish bible that is pre Christian. So, I thought, what do you mean by that because the I believe that the Jewish Convention for OT was set After christianity and the Masoretic text are 500 years after Christianity. You say you have evidence that the Convention was set before Christ and I want to know what it is. We've discussed that Josephus writing just after the destruction of Jerusalem to Apion seems to indicate that 22 books were set. This seems to be good evidence though the counter observation is that it is still after Christ and after a Cataclysmic event occured to the Jewish people so like Jamnia he could have went with just the books excluding others that christians were using. But then you said that had a OT that was pre-Christian and I thought you meant something like the Dead Sea Scrolls but I think you meant just the Tanakh. Which as I explained doesn't quite fit the bill for DHK argument about Abel to Zachariah because the Tanakh ends with 2 Ch with the last mention of the Prophet Jeremiah as I quoted. And if you read their collection of minor prophets Malachi comes After Zachariah. Which is also correct chronologically.

I'm not trying to make anything difficult and you may be right in that I over think stuff. But I'm Thinkingstuff.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Thinkingstuff said:
I'm just going to reiterate what I said in post # 214. The last prophet referred to was Jeremiah. BTW reason for the quote from the Jewish Tanakh.
Here is what Jesus was referring to.

2 Chronicles 24:19-21 Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear.
20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

Here is what Jesus originally said:
Luke 11:49-51 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Jesus is referring to the incident recorded in 2Chron.24. Zechariah is the last of the prophets to be recorded in that book, the last book of the OT Hebrew Canon. From the first prophet to the last prophet, they have slain them all. He is speaking of all the Scripture from Genesis to 2Chron., from the first book in the Bible unto the last book in their Bible (2Chronicles). That point now should be quite evident. He was not speaking of the Apocrypha. He was speaking of the same 22 books that Josephus referred to. This was Jesus testimony of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. From the first book to the last book, and all that is between.
Jeremiah is a book that was before Chronicles, as we all know. So were "The Twelve" which included the book of Malachi. The Hebrew Bible was not necessarily written in chronological order. That is not what is important here. It is what was the first prophet mentioned in the Hebrew OT, and what is the last prophet that was mentioned. And that is what he is referring to in Luke 11, which testifies to the Hebrew Canon.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Jeremiah is a book that was before Chronicles, as we all know. So were "The Twelve" which included the book of Malachi. The Hebrew Bible was not necessarily written in chronological order. That is not what is important here. It is what was the first prophet mentioned in the Hebrew OT, and what is the last prophet that was mentioned. And that is what he is referring to in Luke 11, which testifies to the Hebrew Canon.

Well I think then that you should have used Martyrs rather than prophet for that is what Jesus was referring to. And when you take it as Able the First Martyr (prophet) to Zachariah the last Martyr (Prophet) you actually make a good point. Because there were Martyrs under Antiochus Epiphanese like the one referred to in Hebrews the sons of the women from the book of Maccabees which is what it is referring to. So from that perspective I have to give it to you. :applause:
Otherwise if you just went by prophets, Malachi would have been left out. And certainly Jesus would have known of the Jews who were massacered on the sabbath by Antiochus by the dead sea.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
OK DHK I've done further study and I've come across something that puts a dent into you theory though at first I didn't see it I'm suprised Archer didn't mention it either: You point to this verse from Luke:
49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Then you state that it is referring to this from Chronicles:

2 Chronicles 24:19-21 Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear.
20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

But then I cross referrenced it with Matthew 23:

34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

So then I found this out:
Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was killed during the rule of Joash, king of Israel, who ruled roughly 836 BC to 798 BC.

and

to Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, as follows:

Darius, king of Persia, ruled about 522 BC to 480 BC

So two different Zachariahs and Jesus isn't referring to the close of the OT and the only evidence that is supportable partly is Josephus who was a Jew and came to the same conclusion as Jamnia probably for the same reasons.
 

antiaging

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
As I've been studing Church and World history I've come across some issues I would like to discuss.

Many of you are familiar with this verse in 2nd Timothy.



From it we learn two things: 1) that it is God breathed and 2) it is useful for the stated things. There is no disagreement on this board about this.

It mentions all scripture. I ask myself what does Paul mean when he says all? Also in the verse before he says it will make Timothy wise for salvation. Not that it dispences salvation but give an understanding of it. So this being the case what scripture is Paul speaking of? Surely not the NT since it was not written at this point. It doesn't seem that Paul is placing his writing on equal footing with what he considers scriptures.

Well Daniel says So he viewed Jeremiah as scriptures and the writing before his. Jesus says this in Matt: at this point Jesus is referring to the OT Daniel includes the prophet Jesus includes both So as far as I can tell Paul is speaking of the OT. Then I asked myself well which version of the OT? The LXX or just the selection that was settled by Jews probably at Jamina long after Christ death and resurection. Well NT writers wrote in Greek and their quotes of the OT shows the use of the Greek translation of the OT

So it seems that Greek translation was more comon and in Pauls case it would make sense being from Tarsis and a Roman and having referred to Greek philosphers. I'm not saying he did not know Hebrew being a pharasee of pharasees I'm certain he did but what was convention at the time. The earliest referrence to greek translation was by Aristobulus living around the 2nd century BC

I have to continue later but the point is certain that it is reasonable to assume that the LXX version was considered to be authoritative by the apostles and the early christions.

The apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to Paul's writings as scripture, he put it on equal footing with scripture.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The scriptures that make a person wise unto salvation are in the New Testament.
The New Testament is what is in effect now. The Old Testament ended when Jesus died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

The Isaiah scroll in the dead sea scrolls is massoretic text. It shows that it is the massoretic text that was in use in palestine at the time of the apostles, and not the LXX.
The King James version Old Testament is massoretic text.
There is no real evidence that the LXX existed at the time of the apostles, only legends and myths.
The only real evidence for the LXX is that it existed by the 3rd or fourth century.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever
oral traditions were available to them.

The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.

When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible.

Massoretic text is translated accurately in the King James version Old Testament.

The septuagint, LXX text, has changes in it which were done in Egypt and it was corrulpted by the poeple that made those changes. Probably done by the gnostic heretics and Egyptian philosophers, in Egypt.

Paul did consider what he was preaching to be the Word of God, and that makes it scripture.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If you look up Word of God on a search engine you can see that the preaching of the New Testament about Jesus the saviour is called the Word of God. That it what Paul was preaching in the synagogues which some Jews did not accept.
So the new testament is also scripture, and it is this that makes a person wise to salvation.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:

2 Corinthians 3:11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.

Salvation is certainly found in the New Testament, and not in the Old. The Old testament was done away.
Jerimiah 31:31, prophesied that it would be.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

You will not find salvation in the Old Testament, but a prophecy of a new testament coming. Salvation is in the New Testament.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
antiaging said:
The apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referred to Paul's writings as scripture, he put it on equal footing with scripture.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The scriptures that make a person wise unto salvation are in the New Testament.
The New Testament is what is in effect now. The Old Testament ended when Jesus died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

The Isaiah scroll in the dead sea scrolls is massoretic text. It shows that it is the massoretic text that was in use in palestine at the time of the apostles, and not the LXX.
The King James version Old Testament is massoretic text.
There is no real evidence that the LXX existed at the time of the apostles, only legends and myths.
The only real evidence for the LXX is that it existed by the 3rd or fourth century.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever
oral traditions were available to them.

The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.

When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible.

Massoretic text is translated accurately in the King James version Old Testament.

The septuagint, LXX text, has changes in it which were done in Egypt and it was corrulpted by the poeple that made those changes. Probably done by the gnostic heretics and Egyptian philosophers, in Egypt.

Paul did consider what he was preaching to be the Word of God, and that makes it scripture.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If you look up Word of God on a search engine you can see that the preaching of the New Testament about Jesus the saviour is called the Word of God. That it what Paul was preaching in the synagogues which some Jews did not accept.
So the new testament is also scripture, and it is this that makes a person wise to salvation.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:

2 Corinthians 3:11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.

Salvation is certainly found in the New Testament, and not in the Old. The Old testament was done away.
Jerimiah 31:31, prophesied that it would be.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

You will not find salvation in the Old Testament, but a prophecy of a new testament coming. Salvation is in the New Testament.

I'm quoting DHK here. Wrong. :laugh:


The Massoretic text were copies of text with notation to the copies happened 500 years after Christ. Comparison between Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text indicate that the translations were closer to the LXX. Try reading Flusser's 2nd Temple period literature. He's Jewish and Isreali and has had direct contact with the scrolls.


Remeber what Paul said about listening to what has been passed on by writings and taught orally.
 

antiaging

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
I'm quoting DHK here. Wrong. :laugh:


The Massoretic text were copies of text with notation to the copies happened 500 years after Christ. Comparison between Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text indicate that the translations were closer to the LXX. Try reading Flusser's 2nd Temple period literature. He's Jewish and Isreali and has had direct contact with the scrolls.


Remeber what Paul said about listening to what has been passed on by writings and taught orally.

The Isaiah dead sea scroll is definitely massoretic text, it matches the Tanakh and the KJV old testament.
It does not match the septuagint.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm
Dead Sea Scrolls - Isaiah 53
The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD. (Scholars have discovered a handful of spelling and tense-oriented scribal errors, but nothing of significance.) In light of Isaiah's rich Messianic prophecy, we thought it would be rewarding to reproduce a portion of the English translation of the actual Hebrew text found in the Great Isaiah Scroll. Specifically, the following corresponds to Isaiah 53 in today's Old Testament. Remember, this text was dated 100 to 335 years before the birth of Jesus Christ!

Translation of the actual Great Isaiah Scroll (Isaiah 53), beginning with line 5 of Column 44:

5. Who has believed our report and the arm of YHWH to whom has it been revealed And he shall come up like a suckling before him
6. and as a root from dry ground there is no form to him and no beauty [+to him+] and in his being seen and there is no appearance
7. that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and knowing grief
8. and as though hiding faces from him he was despised and we did not esteem him. Surely our griefs he
9. is bearing and our sorrows he carried them and we esteemed him beaten and struck by God
10. and afflicted. and he is wounded for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities, the correction
11. of our peace was upon him and by his wounds he has healed us. All of us like sheep have wandered each man to his own way
12. we have turned and YHWH has caused to light on him the iniquity of all of us He was oppressed and he was afflicted and he did not
13. open his mouth, as a lamb to the slaughter he is brought and as a ewe before her shearers is made dumb he did not open
14. his mouth. From prison and from judgment he was taken and his generation who shall discuss it because he was cut off from the land of
15. the living. Because from the transgressions of his people a wound was to him
16. And they gave wicked ones to be his grave and [a scribbled word probably accusative sign "eth"] rich ones in his death
17. although he worked no violence neither deceit in his mouth And YHWH was pleased to crush him and He has caused him grief.
18. If you will appoint his soul a sin offering he will see his seed and he will lengthen his days and the pleasure of YHWH
19. in his hand will advance. Of the toil of his soul he shall see {+light+} and he shall be satisfied and by his knowledge shall he make righteous
20. even my righteous servant for many and their iniquities he will bear. Therefore I will apportion to him among the great ones
21. and with the mighty ones he shall divide the spoil because he laid bare to death his soul and with the transgressors
22. he was numbered, and he, the sins of many, he bore, and for their transgressions he entreated.

The traditional Jewish text, the massoretic text or Tanakh was used in Palestine at the time of Christ.

Reasons why the septuagint did not exist at the time of Christ.

1. THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A STANDARDIZED, COMMONLY USED GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT IN JESUS’ DAY IS VAGUE.
The extensive research of Paul Kahle has demonstrated that there was no Septuagint prior to the time of Christ. “Paul Kahle, a famous OT scholar who has done extensive work in the Septuagint, does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype. The theory, proposed and developed largely by him, is that the LXX had its origin in numerous oral, and subsequently written translations for use in the services after the reading of the Hebrew original. Later an official standardized version of the Law was made, but did not entirely replace the older versions, while for the rest of the books there never was a standard Jewish translation, but only a variety of versions” (Jack Moorman, Forever Settled). Frederic Kenyon, while not agreeing with Kahle, acknowledged that he made a strong case.
There is no manuscript evidence of a Greek Old Testament that dates before Christ. At best there is a fragment of one small portion of the Law. The earliest of the extant manuscripts of a Greek translation of the Old Testament date to 200 years A.D. One possible exception is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deut. 23-28. It is possible that this fragment dates to 150 B.C., though this is not certain. Thus the actual manuscript evidence is inconclusive at best. The best we can assume from the extant manuscript evidence is that it is possible that there was a translation of the Law into Greek prior to the time of Christ.
The story that a group of scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek in 250 to 150 B.C. is legendary. The letter of Aristeas is dubious in the highest degree, containing, as it does, statements that are fictitious upon their very face. “A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates during the reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus (285-246 BC), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem, who sent seventy-two elders (six from each of the twelve tribes) to Alexandria with an official copy of the Law. There in seventy-two days they made a translation which was read before the Jewish community amid great applause, and then presented it to the king. From the number of the translators it became known (somewhat inaccurately) as the Septuagint” (Moorman). “Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).Thus even the name Septuagint is based on a fable. For this reason it is also called the Egyptian Text.
At best, the evidence hints at a formal translation of only the Pentateuch in Alexandria. The New Bible Dictionary says that it is probable that a translation of the Pentateuch was made at one time and place and that the other books of the O.T. were then translated into Greek piecemeal by various individuals later. Reference is made to these books by the grandson of Siroch in the prologue to the Apocryphal book by that name. Subsequently, the name Septuagint was extended to cover this hodge-podge of translations.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-septuagint.html
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hmmm...let's see...the Dead Sea Scrolls were B.C.; the Masoretic text was A.D. - so, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that they are one and the same?
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Since this conversation is still going on, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology has a good chapter on this showing that the DC were not accepted as Scripture.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
antiaging said:
The Isaiah dead sea scroll is definitely massoretic text, it matches the Tanakh and the KJV old testament.
It does not match the septuagint.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm
Dead Sea Scrolls - Isaiah 53

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-septuagint.html

Ok lets do this.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) like the magnificent Isaiah scroll closely follow the Masoretic Text (MT), but there are a few exceptions. For example, Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" is missing in the MT. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out. Another important difference is in I Samuel 11 where the MT is shortened. The longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter.

Three of the most important Biblical texts from Qumran are: (1) The Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1 which has two different text types, with about 1,375 differences from the MT. (2) The Habakkuk Commentary from Cave 1 which uses the pesher method of interpretation, and the name Yahweh is written in paleo-Hebrew. (3) The Psalm scroll from Cave 11 contains 41 canonical psalms and 7 apocryphal psalms mixed in among them. The order of the psalms differs largely from the MT (Wurthwein 1979, 32).

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.

Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior. www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm - 16k
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Pastor Larry said:
Since this conversation is still going on, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology has a good chapter on this showing that the DC were not accepted as Scripture.
Of course Wayne Grudem is entitled to his opinion. Many other church historians (such as JND Kelly in EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES) would beg to differ, and they would have documentary evidence to back their position up as well.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Pastor Larry said:
Since this conversation is still going on, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology has a good chapter on this showing that the DC were not accepted as Scripture.

Systematic Theologian? We've all seen where Karl Barth went with that.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Of course Wayne Grudem is entitled to his opinion. Many other church historians (such as JND Kelly in EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES) would beg to differ, and they would have documentary evidence to back their position up as well.
Grudem backs it up well. It confirms the testimony that the true church has almost universally held.

Systematic Theologian?
Yes, everyone is a systematic theologian. Any time you try to reconcile two verse you are doing systematic theology.

We've all seen where Karl Barth went with that.
The problem there was Barth, not systematic theology.
 

Darron Steele

New Member
Pastor Larry: "Thinkingstuff" consistently ignores the inconvenient parts of the truth of the early church writers in regards to the so-called "deutero-canonicals."

He would have us believe that all the early church writers accepted a longer Old Testament. He is not exactly clear whether he means the Septuagint version of the Eastern Orthodox, or the "deutero-canonical" version of the Vatican. Still, he would have us believe that the consensus of the early church writers was a longer Old Testament.

Here is the whole truth:
a) some accepted additional books as full Scripture,
b) some did not accept additional books as such.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Darron Steele said:
Pastor Larry: "Thinkingstuff" consistently ignores the inconvenient parts of the truth of the early church writers in regards to the so-called "deutero-canonicals."
He would have us believe that all the early church writers accepted a longer Old Testament. He is not exactly clear whether he means the Septuagint version of the Eastern Orthodox, or the "deutero-canonical" version of the Vatican. Still, he would have us believe that the consensus of the early church writers was a longer Old Testament.

Here is the whole truth:
a) some accepted additional books as full Scripture,
b) some did not accept additional books as such
.

Bold 1) Not true. I'm studing and the whole thing is inconvient. Actually, If I had it my way I would hold to the "trail of Blood" pamphlet but its not the truth. It would make things a lot easier but its not academically honest. I'm just stating what I've learned and come accross and how it has challenged me.

Bold 2) I would not have you believe anything. Believe whatever you wish just don't expect me to believe it without factual evidence. As far as being exactly clear about the Orthodox or Vatican version of the LXX is because I'm not though through studies of christian history I lean towards the books the Orthodox have included.

Bold 3) That is actually the most true thing you've said in this post, but I differ with your impression that it was 50/50. There is more Evidence of those who've included the "additional books" than not.
 

antiaging

New Member
Matt Black said:
Hmmm...let's see...the Dead Sea Scrolls were B.C.; the Masoretic text was A.D. - so, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that they are one and the same?

The Hebrew scribes made word for word copies of the texts everytime the parchaments got old and passed them on to the next generation. They did this from the time of Moses to the present day.
The massoretic text was compiled by the massoretes from these accurate copies that were passed down through the ages. The Isaiah scroll is one of those copies. Separated by hundreds of years they still have the authentic text of the Hebrew scriptures.
The same thing was done in the byzantine section of the Roman empire with the New Testament scriptures. They were copied word for word and passed down to the next generation as the parchaments got old. The accurate copies, unaltered, of the new testament scriptures is what came to be known as the majority or byzantine text, or textus receptus. Thousands of accurate copies exist in other languages and Greek and they agree together.
The King James Version (old king James version) has accurate translations of the massoretic text old testament and textus receptus new testament.
It is the original writings in English and as the inspired Word of God, it is infallible when you understand it correctly.
The Old King James version bible is the real Word of God. Copied, recopied, and handed down through the ages.

I cannot say that for the modern versions. They have texts that were obviously corrupted and are not the original writings mixed in them, ie. vaticannus and sinaiticus. Vaticannus and sinaiticus were corrupted by gnostic heretics in the 3rd or 4th century, and they disagree with the accurate texts and disagree with each other in many places.

Since you can say the same thing in different words, and words need to be added to make proper sentence structure in other languages, when I say they agree I mean they are saying the same thing, although other words might be used to say it.
example:
Jane went to school.
Jane left her house and arrived at school.
Those are two different ways of saying the same thing. They agree although using different words.
The Tyndale bible, the Geneva bible, Luther's german bible, the bishops bible, and the King James version, all agree, in that they say the same things, but they may say those things using different wording because they were translated by different people. [The old King James Version is the best translation of the original texts and was done by the best translators.]
You can say the same thing using different words, and that is what I mean by agree.

The corrupted manuscripts, vaticannus and sinaiticus, don't agree and they don't say the same things. Words are added, deleted, and changed from the original meanings, probably to promote gnosticism which disagrees with Christianity on important doctrines. The modern versions don't say the same things as the original writings in about 5% of important places that have to do with doctrine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

antiaging

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
Ok lets do this.


OK, Let's do this.

Read and reread the real Word of God, the King James version, and ask God to teach you what it means, before you read it.
Or better yet, get it on tape and listen to it alot.

Allowing yourself to be confused by the septuagint and the modern versions, which have been corrupted, will hinder your Christian developement and may even cause you to lose faith in God's Word.

If you lose faith you lose your soul, which means hell and eternal suffering.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Two requirements for salvation, belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour and repentance of sin.--That's the real HOW of "How do you get saved".
[Note: If He is your Lord it means you obey His teachings.]
Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

I use quotes from the real Word of God, because His Word will accomplish what He sends it to do.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


Jeremiah 23:28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.
Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

Discussions about this subject is to me like baby sitting kinder garden.
How do you discuss the deep things of God with people that aren't even sure if they have His Word in the first place?
Instead of using the sincere milk of the Word they have allowed themselves to be deceived by corrupted bible texts and people like Hort and Westcott.
You believe in God.
OK, do this. Ask God to lead you to use His real Word and to show you which one it is. Then believe He will do that.
 

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
Quote: The old King James Version is the best translation of the original texts and was done by the best translators.]
---------------------------------------

If this is true, shouldn't you be Church of England?

The KJV was translated at the hands of King James, Head of the Church of England and done by mainly Church of England scholars and vicars.

Just curious.

Cheers,

Jim
 

Darron Steele

New Member
Written to Antiaging:
Jim1999 said:
Quote: The old King James Version is the best translation of the original texts and was done by the best translators.]
---------------------------------------

If this is true, shouldn't you be Church of England?

The KJV was translated at the hands of King James, Head of the Church of England and done by mainly Church of England scholars and vicars.

Just curious.

Cheers,

Jim
Do not bother trying to reason with him. Contrary to all evidence, he alleges that the ancient Greek manuscripts were made by Gnostics at Alexandria in Egypt.

Never mind that the Gnostics tended to focus on forgeries made by themselves, and not Christian Scriptures. Never mind that there are dozens of ancient manuscripts and they come to us from all three Old World continents. He has been informed of all this and he just regurgitates the same stuff.
 
Top