• 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!

Please Show the Scripture that says

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
SGO said:
the Lord Jesus read from the Septuagint.
Or any scripture that shows any other New Testament writer used the Septuagint.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It is painfully clear to anyone who has studied the LXX that it is a post-New Testament work which ineptly labours to reconcile apparent contradictions between the NT and the OT.

Also, it's unthinkable that Christ and his apostles went around quoting a Greek text to a nationalist bunch like the Pharisees.

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?
 
S

SGO

Well-Known Member
SavedBy Grace said, "NT writers would have done, is to use a Hebrew OT (Hebrew Vorlage), that is very similiar to the LXX, like its own translators did when they translated it from the original Hebrew, some 150 years before Jesus was born."

Thank you for this previously unknown to me gem of information.

Then there was no need for a Hebrew "updated version" for Jesus' days in Israel.
 
D

Deadworm

Member
No canonical list of exactly our 66 biblical books exists prior to the Reformation. From apostolic times, the Septuagint version of the OT was the only text used outside Palestine, and so, the so-called OT apocrypha was included in the biblical canon accepted in Christianity. Even for first-century Palestine there is evidence that many Jews did not limit the biblical canon to our 39 OT books. Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture in 1 Cor 2:9; and Jude alludes to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as if he considers both Scripture. No, it is not plausible to suppose instead that 1 Cor 2:9 is based on a loose citation of Isaiah 64:4. And remember, Jude alludes to supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses that he must have considered divinely inspired. Otherwise, why accept these miracle stories?
 
Q

Quantrill

Active Member
Again, the 'supposed text of the Septuagint' is taken from the Alexandrian Texts or Manuscripts. The Alexandrian Texts are made up of 45 manuscripts. Three of these are of major influence. They contain both Old and New Testament in Greek.

1.) Codex Sinaiticus
2.) Codex Vaticanus
3.) Codex Alexandrinus

These are dated 4th and 5th century A.D. Not 3rd or 4th century B.C. There is no evidence that there was any such Septuagint in 3rd or 4th century B.C. as is claimed. Other than the proven lie of it's origin in 'Letter of Aristeas'.

Origen's translation of the Bible is dated at 200 A.D. It is called the Hexapla. Because Origen's translation of the Old Testament agrees with the so called Septuagint, found in the Alexandrian manuscripts, it is claimed by some that he actually was copying or translating from the Septuagint. But all that can really be claimed here is that the Alexandrian manuscripts agree with Origen. Not that Origen translated or copied from any Septuagint.

And, as I have already noted, it is known that at the end of codex Vaticanus, it says it came from Origen's Hexapla. In other words, these earliest Alexandrian manuscripts are really Origen's translation. Not any so called Septuagint written in 3rd or 4th century B.C. So, when it is said a certain quote comes from the Septuagint, what it is really saying is that it is from Origen or the Alexandrian Text.

So, because Westcott/Hort used almost exclusively the Alexandrian Texts in their translation of the New Testament, then their Old Testament quotes naturally agreed with the so called Septuagint found in the Alexandrian manuscripts. And naturally agrees with Origen.

Quantrill
 
Q

Quantrill

Active Member
George Antonios said:
It is painfully clear to anyone who has studied the LXX that it is a post-New Testament work which ineptly labours to reconcile apparent contradictions between the NT and the OT.

Also, it's unthinkable that Christ and his apostles went around quoting a Greek text to a nationalist bunch like the Pharisees.

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. And instead of trying to reconcile the apparent contradictions by making a bogus translation, Christians should see this as an opportunity to discover some hidden truth there. In other words, in that New Testament quote that differs to degree with what it's quoting in the Old Testament, it means God is revealing something.

Quantrill
 
S

SGO

Well-Known Member
Deadworm said:
No canonical list of exactly our 66 biblical books exists prior to the Reformation. From apostolic times, the Septuagint version of the OT was the only text used outside Palestine, and so, the so-called OT apocrypha was included in the biblical canon accepted in Christianity. Even for first-century Palestine there is evidence that many Jews did not limit the biblical canon to our 39 OT books. Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture in 1 Cor 2:9; and Jude alludes to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as if he considers both Scripture. No, it is not plausible to suppose instead that 1 Cor 2:9 is based on a loose citation of Isaiah 64:4. And remember, Jude alludes to supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses that he must have considered divinely inspired. Otherwise, why accept these miracle stories?
Click to expand...


If these quotes show that these apocryphal books are scripture why are they not in the bible?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Deadworm said:
No canonical list of exactly our 66 biblical books exists prior to the Reformation. From apostolic times, the Septuagint version of the OT was the only text used outside Palestine, and so, the so-called OT apocrypha was included in the biblical canon accepted in Christianity. Even for first-century Palestine there is evidence that many Jews did not limit the biblical canon to our 39 OT books. Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture in 1 Cor 2:9; and Jude alludes to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as if he considers both Scripture. No, it is not plausible to suppose instead that 1 Cor 2:9 is based on a loose citation of Isaiah 64:4. And remember, Jude alludes to supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses that he must have considered divinely inspired. Otherwise, why accept these miracle stories?
Click to expand...
Those books were not inspired, Enoch and Assumption, but there were in them some historically true elements, which were used by Jude!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SGO said:
They quoted but does the quotes mean that those books are inspired?
If so, why are they not in the bible?
Inspired or not, God did not want them in His word!
Click to expand...
The entire books were not inspired, but still did contain some true history!
 
S

SGO

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
The entire books were not inspired, but still did contain some true history!
Click to expand...

Having some true historical data is one thing,
but don't scholars use the Septuagint to make bible translations and also use it to dispute other translations?, throwing it in the pot of "reliable manuscripts"?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SGO said:
Having some true historical data is one thing,
but don't scholars use the Septuagint to make bible translations and also use it to dispute other translations?
Click to expand...
They might use it to "correct" at times some renderings translated in to English....
 
Q

Quantrill

Active Member
SGO said:
If The LXX (the Seventy) not a legitimate set of documents the the translators using it are at fault.
Click to expand...

And on that basis one must consider most all of modern translations as they are all taken from the Alexandrian Texts. The Westcott/Hort New Testament, and the Septuagint for the Old Testament. Also called the Minority Text, as it uses 45 manuscripts, copies, and versions.

This is in contrast to the KJV which is taken from the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Antioch Texts, also known as Textus Receptus , for the New Testament. Also called the Majority Text as it uses over 5,000 manuscripts, copies, and versions.

Quantrill
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Quantrill said:
And on that basis one must consider most all of modern translations as they are all taken from the Alexandrian Texts. The Westcott/Hort New Testament, and the Septuagint for the Old Testament. Also called the Minority Text, as it uses 45 manuscripts, copies, and versions.

This is in contrast to the KJV which is taken from the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Antioch Texts, also known as Textus Receptus , for the New Testament. Also called the Majority Text as it uses over 5,000 manuscripts, copies, and versions.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Are you then KJVO?
 
Q

Quantrill

Active Member
Yeshua1 said:
Are you then KJVO?
Click to expand...

I believe the KJV is the best and safest Bible one can own. No other Bible comes close to it in it's translation and in the devotion and efforts of those translators.

Such a Bible as the King James, could never be reproduced again.

As far as for me, yes, I have no interest in other versions. As far as for anyone else, choose whatever you like. Does that make me King James Version Only? So be it.

Quantrill
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Quantrill said:
I believe the KJV is the best and safest Bible one can own. No other Bible comes close to it in it's translation and in the devotion and efforts of those translators.

Such a Bible as the King James, could never be reproduced again.

As far as for me, yes, I have no interest in other versions. As far as for anyone else, choose whatever you like. Does that make me King James Version Only? So be it.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Do you see those other translations as being real bibles?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top