Septuagint real?

I am at a loss to figure out what some of the comments in this thread are about ...

If we disallow the LXX from the corpus of extant Christian literature, we weaken some strong predictions about the coming of Christ.

Before this thread, the only mentioning of doubt about the LXX that I have read were made by men (*) that wanted to weaken the LXX. These comments were by those "scholars" that wanted to teach that Christ WAS NOT prophesied about in the OT? These "scholars" also wanted to correct most of the Christological passages in the OT (MV and KJV).

What did I miss in this thread?

In Christ


(*) sorry ladies, but I do not know of any women involved in this weakening of scripture

 

El Guero...

Have you noticed in history that few people had any probs with the LXX until recently? The "trouble" was invented by some KJVOs who were seeking to promote their idea that there has been only one valid version of Scripture throughout history. Therefore, since most Bible versions use the Masoretic Texts as the source for their OTs, the KJVOs are badmouthing the LXX because it often differs from the MT.

They do this in the face of overwhelming evidence that the NT people, INCLUDING JESUS HIMSELF, often made quotes from the OT which match the LXX much more than they match the MTs.

What makes the KJVOs look so bad in this point is that they DEFEND the fact that Scripture is translated into many languages now, including those that didn't exist while God was presenting His words to His prophets and scribes. They cite the fact that TIMOTHY HAD HAD THE SCRIPTURES SINCE HIS YOUTH, and they certainly weren't the autographa, and most likely a Greek versions or versions since his father was a Greek.

Looks as if the KJVOs have created another conundrum for themselves, since they denounce the very version most likely used by most of the apostles and very possibly JESUS HIMSELF. The "one version" myth simply won't fly. The KJV itself and its translators provide some very telling evidence in favor of the LXX.