Septuagint ... Is it the word of God ?

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Even so, if it weren't for the God's providental use of the Masoretic Text I'd probably consider saying hey lets just go with the Septuagint. But I submit to God's choice in this.

Explain how God "chose" the Masoretic Text? I'm missing something in the argument here. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]The same way he chose the cannon. Just as God would not allow any of His bible to fall through the cracks, God by allowing the Masoretic Text to be the standard translation text for hundreds of years has put his general stamp of approval on it.

For example, say tomorrow we unearthed a previously unknown letter of Paul, the autograph no less. There's no doctrinal error that anyone can see, and it appears to be good, solid teaching. Should we add it to our Bibles?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Not trying to be obtuse, but how did GOD use the Masoretic text? It did not evolve into what we know of it today until the time of the Crusades.

What did God do prior to that?

Also, some English Bibles used Hebrew texts, the Masoretic text, the Latin and the LXX as the basis of the OT. Was this an error?

And now we HAVE the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) some of which vary from the LXX and the Masoretic Text. Do we not have an obligation to evaluate ALL extant documents?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

There have been Greek OT fragments found at Qumran! In addition the Greek genesis has been quoted by secular authors as early as the late 3rd century BC!

A couple of fragments does NOT a pre-Christian Greek OT make..


1)That is not a Greek OT.

2)That is not Isaiah,Hosea,or Psalms.

3)No NT writer quoted one word from one verse from any of the alleged "pre-Christian LXX" papyri.

The charge that the "Letter of Aristeas" is spurious is almost certainly true - the whole LXX was not produced in a sitting but it was produced.

Yes it was produced,around 200 years AFTER the close of the NT canon.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Well, AA - you are entitled to your opinion but brother you are really really wrong. Sorry I can't cushion it better.

I'd encourage you to study:

http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/NTChart.htm

http://www.churchhistory.net/documents/canon.html

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Even so, if it weren't for the God's providental use of the Masoretic Text I'd probably consider saying hey lets just go with the Septuagint. But I submit to God's choice in this.

Explain how God "chose" the Masoretic Text? I'm missing something in the argument here. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]The same way he chose the cannon. Just as God would not allow any of His bible to fall through the cracks, God by allowing the Masoretic Text to be the standard translation text for hundreds of years has put his general stamp of approval on it.

For example, say tomorrow we unearthed a previously unknown letter of Paul, the autograph no less. There's no doctrinal error that anyone can see, and it appears to be good, solid teaching. Should we add it to our Bibles? </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't the MT come along about 1000 AD? So what happened before that time and after the OT was written.

 

[timothy 1769]

I assume it generally reflected, sans vowels, the best copies from before that time. The halakha dealing with scroll copying wasn't invented in 1000AD.

In any event this text has apparently been good enough for God for hundreds of years so it should be generally accepted today. God's will is shown through history. Some spiritual discernment is needed, of course, but I don't think this witness of the Almighty should be lightly tossed aside! And the idea that "hey, we found one old manuscript, let's rewrite our bibles" should never be accepted as it completely ignores God's work in preservation.

 

[HankD]

I gave plenty of Scripture(KJB)references at the begining of the thread;the supposed "72 Jewish Scholars" allegedly translated the LXX in the time before Christ;they were still under the law.Such an act -had it happened- would have been a violation of Scripture from Numbers to Malichi.

One (1) such citation specifically against the LXX from "Numbers to Malichi" would be appreciated.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Even if the ridiculous notion of a pre-Christian LXX was valid, it would be in violation of Scripture(KJB):


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

Not exactly so, following is a rebuttal to the Scriptures you have cited but not quoted and an important oversight on your part concerning this matter.

Deuteronomy 17:18

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites

In the CONTEXT, this is a duty of the King of Israel and has NOTHING to do with the TRANSLATION of the Word of God for public dissemination.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26

That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Ibid reason above, this is a singular witness against the Hebrews and has nothing to do with the LXX translational issue.

Malachi 2:7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he [is] the messenger of the LORD of hosts

Again, this is a bogus claim that the Levites were ALONE keepers of the Word of God from the very verses you have given, the kings of Israel/Judah were not Levites and they were to make a copy of the Law, David was of Judah and God used him to WRITE some of the Scriptures, the prophets were not Levites and they also wrote and kept the Scriptures. AGAIN, there is nothing about a translation of God's Word in this passage.

The LXX was a translation of the Word of God and not a copy of the original Hebrew language text.

I am not able to find one rule concerning the translation of the Hebrew into another language in the Law. If you know of one which specifically speaks of translating the Hebrew Word of God into another language and requires a Levite to do the same please let me know where it is found.

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

Jeremiah 44:26
Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth

Again another unreasonable claim for more than one reason; first of all the Jews didn’t say the name of God in or out of Egypt which proves that the Scripture could and was copied without the necessity of saying the name of God, they were silent when it cam to the name of God or simply said HaShem indicating that the name of God was present in the text. This reason Is sufficient to show that your logic is wrong. And just to be consistent we are talking about a translation above and beyond the speaking of the tetragrammaton.

I could have and may yet expand the context from which these citations were isolated.

The bottom line is that the LXX was a translation and not defined as a duty of the Levites neither are there rules concerning the translation of either the Old or New Testaments as “translations”.

HankD

 

[Ransom]

Anti-Alexandrian said:

And we all know that no one ever broke the law, right?

Wrong!! But that is no excuse

Excuse for what? The implicit assumption in your so-called argument was that the LXX could not have pre-existed the Christian era because to produce it would have violated the law. That is a patently ridiculous assumption.

I could say, with equal basis in reason, that Jesus never existed because he was supposedly a descendant of David and Bathsheba. But David and Bathsheba's marriage was the consequence of an adulterous relationship, though no Jew would have ever broken the Law and committed adultery. Ergo, they never had offspring. Ergo, Jesus never existed. QED.

Now that your nonsense has been exposed, you are blathering about Romans or some such nonsense - in other words, you have been proven wrong yet again, and you are pulling the typical KJV-only switcheroo and changing the subject.