Is the Septuagint divinely inspired?

[Deacon]

Are translations inspired?

Is the Septuagint inspired? [LINK]

1. It was quoted by Jesus
   
2. It was used by the Apostles
   
3. It was the scriptures of the early church
   
4. It was used by the early church fathers
   
5. It was used by believers for over a thousand years
   
6. It was translated into many different languages
   
7. And it was praised by translators of the King James Version

Rob

 

[preachinjesus]

Do you believe the NIV, NASB/U, ESV, KJV, etc etc etc are inspired translations?

 

[Deacon]

The most copied, read and loved Holy Bible of all time.

The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, like silver, having been purged with fire, tested in the earth, cleansed seven-fold. You, O Lord, will guard us, and you will preserve us from this generation and forever. Psalm 11:7–8, Lexham English Septuagint

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Do you believe the NIV, NASB/U, ESV, KJV, etc etc etc are inspired translations?

While the entire line of scripture are records, the outstanding record of scripture and the scripture of primary authority is the text of the Septuagint.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

#1. You can honestly state you have the full manuscripts of the Septuagint.

#2. You can honestly say the Greek texts quoted by Jesus and the apostles were given by inspiration of God.

(There are over 300 places in the N.T. were the Septuagint was quoted).

#3 The canon of scripture was formed using the Greek translation of the bible found in the Septuagint.

Rob

 

[Van]

If an inspired author cites a source, including it in his inspired text, then that portion of the cited source becomes inspired. But the non-included portions do not somehow become inspired. Therefore the case for asserting the Septuagint is an inspired translation is utterly bogus.

Was the "canon" of scripture formed using the Septuagint as the list of books to include? What about the Hebrew texts? Then many of the Greek NT texts were not written when the first version of the Septuagint was produced.

Perhaps a little more meat should be put on those bones?

 

[ktn4eg]

IMHO, I do not believe the LXX per se is "divinely inspired" in the exact same sense as the original autographs were.

Yes, the LXX's renderings were perhaps often quoted by the original human writers of the NT, but to me that by itself does not convey therefore the entire LXX is thus "divinely inspired," or as someone (don't remember who it was) put it, "There's no such thing as 'retroactive divine inspiration.'"

To say that because the LXX is "divinely inspired" is practically the same as saying that The Book of Enoch is "divinely inspired" because one will find a quotation from it in Jude 14 -16.

This is what Gleason L. Archer wrote about this quotation in his excellent book New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (c) 1982, Zondervan; p. 430:
"....This is by no means demonstrates that everything in the Book of Enoch is historically accurate or theologically valid. Much of Enoch may be quite fictional. But there is no ground for condemning everything that is written therein as false, simply because the book is noncanonical. Even a pagan work could contain items of truth, as attested to by Paul when he quoted Aratus's Phaenomena 5 to his Athenian audience (Acts 17:28)."

My two cents.

 

[Van]

Spot on!

IMHO, I do not believe the LXX per se is "divinely inspired" in the exact same sense as the original autographs were.

Yes, the LXX's renderings were perhaps often quoted by the original human writers of the NT, but to me that by itself does not convey therefore the entire LXX is thus "divinely inspired," or as someone (don't remember who it was) put it, "There's no such thing as 'retroactive divine inspiration.'"

To say that because the LXX is "divinely inspired" is practically the same as saying that The Book of Enoch is "divinely inspired" because one will find a quotation from it in Jude 14 -16.

This is what Gleason L. Archer wrote about this quotation in his excellent book New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (c) 1982, Zondervan; p. 430:
"....This is by no means demonstrates that everything in the Book of Enoch is historically accurate or theologically valid. Much of Enoch may be quite fictional. But there is no ground for condemning everything that is written therein as false, simply because the book is noncanonical. Even a pagan work could contain items of truth, as attested to by Paul when he quoted Aratus's Phaenomena 5 to his Athenian audience (Acts 17:28)."

My two cents.

Make that four cents.

 

[HankD]

Someone here at the BB worded it this way:

The originals: The word of God by inspiration.
The mss copies : The word of God by preservation.
The translations: The word of God by derivation.

HankD

 

[Eliyahu]

1. LXX was not quoted by Jesus
2. LK 24:44 disapproves LXX as it confirms the same sequence as Ben Chayyim Masora
3. Disciples didn't quote because you can find too much discrepancies if you compare between LXX and GNT
4. LXX brings Apocrypha and therefore RCC fathers and idol worshippers liked it
5. LXX disproves what Jesus said in Mt 5:17-19 because many verses in LXX already disappeared (e.g. Exodus 28:23-28 disappeared)
6. LXX contradicts itself as Ex 1:5 says 75 souls, Deut 10:22 says 70 souls.
7. Translators of KJV tried to avoid it basically though they had some hints from it sometimes. KJV was rather based on TR, Tyndale, BenChayyim Masora, Geneva, Waldensian ( derived from Old Latin) – On this part I may lack some evidence, but I am sure they didn’t rely on LXX.

LXX is one of the major strongholds where RCC the center of Babylonian Religion is based on.

I reject any Leaven from LXX!

 

[Deacon]

LXX is one of the major strongholds where RCC the center of Babylonian Religion is based on.

I reject any Leaven from LXX!

…[It] pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince … Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

This [the Septuagint] is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles.

The Septuagint “…the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house…”

Edition of the Seventy … was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries.

From the translators of the King James Bible, in their preface concerning The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek. [LINK]

Rob

 

[Deacon]

All scripture [is] inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16 Lexham English Bible

 

[Yeshua1]

All scripture [is] inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16 Lexham English Bible

Would say that the LXX was used by early Church, but that it was NOT inspired as revealtion from God, as were the canon of scriptures, but that just as in Jude, the Spirit inspired them to lift and use the LXX quotes as befitting to what He wanted to say to us!

 

[Deacon]

I'll answer that this way...

All scripture, (whose very source is breathed from God) is profitable… 2 Timothy 3:16 (personal paraphrase)

Timothy did not have the original Hebrew scriptures, he had a copy (perhaps even a translation) of scripture which had been copied many times over past ages.

As much as a copy or translation faithfully conveys the original God-breathed meaning, it is considered to be holy (sacred) writings and as such, it is profitable.

If Timothy had "inspired" scripture, why don't we???

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I reject any Leaven from LXX!

All (virtually) Bibles, including KJVs, base the order of the books on the order found in the LXX. I prefer the Hebrew order as found in the Tanakh.

 

[Deacon]

The chief witness of the Apocrypha is found in the LXX.

Besides the LXX, the translators of the Authorized Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible and the New Revised English Version as well as some others include the Apocrypha in their translation.

Rob

 

[Dr. Bob]

And sadly, the AV translators in the 1611 first edition, put daily "Scripture Reading" chart. I thought that was great, until I saw sections from Esdras and Tobit and other apocryphal books included in "Scripture" reading.

I had always assumed the 1611 committee just stuck the Apocrypha in since it was common to do so in translations of that era. Find out differently.

I do NOT hold the apocryphal books to by inspired, nor any translation (in Greek or 1611 or 1960) of the apocryphal books inspired. In spite of the Anglicans of London or Catholics of Rome or ancient Jews of Egypt.​

 

[Deacon]

[Concerning the writing of the Septuagint] The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread.

As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.

And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:

But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.

4 Ezras 14:37-47

 

[Deacon]

Should correct our OT translations and make them agree with the NT quotes from the inspired authors?

Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165 AD) wrote this in his argument with Trypho concerning the Septuagint's superiority over the Masoretic text of the Jews:

"I establish the fact that this prophecy of Isaiah speaks of our Christ and not Hezekiah, as you claim, will you not be obliged to doubt your teachers who dare to assert that the translation [of the Scriptures found in the Septuagint] made by your seventy elders at the court of the Egyptian King Ptolemy is inaccurate in some places? For, whenever there arises in the Scriptures an evident contradiction of their silly and conceited doctrine, your teachers boldly affirm that it was not so written in the original text. And they conspire to distort other statements, harmonizing them with human actions and claiming that they have been spoken not of this our Jesus Christ, but of him of whom they attempt to interpret them. For instance, they taught you that the quotation under discussion is to be interpreted as referring to Hezekiah, a statement which, as I promised, I will prove to be a lie. Under pressure, they are forced to agree that some of the passages we cited -- passages already quoted to you which clearly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and to be called God -- were indeed spoken of Christ. They boldly deny that He whom we worship is the Christ, yet they admit that a Messiah will come to suffer and rule and be worshipped. This opinion, too, I will prove to be absurd and senseless. But, as you have compelled me to first answer what you have said in ridicule, I will do so, and then I will pass on to the proofs of the other subjects." Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 68.7-9

 

[Deacon]

Everyone is aware that one argument for a partucular version's superiority is that it doesn't delete verses that "modern versions" delete.
This is an ancient argument argued in ages past.

Here is how Justin Martyr uses this line of argument:

"I certainly do not trust your teachers when they refuse to admit that the translation of the Scriptures made by the seventy elders at the court of King Ptolemy of Egypt is a correct one, and attempt to make their own translation. You should also know that they have deleted entire passages from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy, in which it is clearly indicated that the Crucified One was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross. But, since I know that all you Jews deny the authenticity of these passages, I will not start a discussion about them, but I will limit the controversy to those passages which you admit as genuine. [Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 71:1-2]

Rob