Featured Please Show the Scripture that says

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

The kind of vague claims that even Wikipedia doesn't quite allow. Always "there is evidence" to bolster up any idea.

 

Those books were not inspired, Enoch and Assumption, but there were in them some historically true elements, which were used by Jude!

 

Jude never saw a book of Enoch or quoted one a day in his life.

 

Peter and Jude quoted from them, correct?

 

The entire books were not inspired, but still did contain some true history!

 

They might use it to "correct" at times some renderings translated in to English....

 

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

 

Where?

Quantrill

 

Are you then KJVO?

 

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

 

Do you see those other translations as being real bibles?