Helen said:
some of the Apocryphal books were written after the Alexandrian LXX and refer to it.
The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.
from
http://www.bible-researcher.com/brenton1.html
Sidlow Baxter, in his book "The Strategic Grasp of the Bible" mentions that the grandson of the author of Ecclesiaticus states that the Hebrew Scriptures had already been translated into Greek when he, himself, translated Ecclesiaticus from Hebrew into Greek. He wrote around 200 BC
The Alexandrian is available here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0913573442/?tag=baptis04-20
As far as the plasma model is concerned, this is part of my husband's research and no, we are not compromising with evolutionary interpretations. But data is still data and God has not lied in His creation.
Finally, if the commandment is truly not to kill, then God commanded His people time and time again to disobey His commandment! That is not the God of the Bible....
Helen,
What you quoted above is one of the Anti-KJV sites. Now as both parties differ so much with the logic of Poisoning the Well, we have to approach the issue step by step. But in that case the discussion on the internet website may be limited. There are many articles which ignore and refuse such argument which you quoted. Even though you may quicklt turn down, I can also quote this site as well.
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/septuagint.asp
Apparently the timing must be different from 285AD.
Sorry to tell you that you are standing on the Hoax.
Whose argument is correct can be checked by ourselves now.
Do you believe this is true?
A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the sacred books of the Jews. The king accordingly, as a preliminary, purchased the freedom of more than one hundred thousand Jewish captives, and he then sent a deputation, of which Aristeas himself was one, to Eleazar the high-priest to request a copy of the Jewish Law and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each tribe. To this the priest is represented to have agreed; and after the arrival of the translators and their magnificent reception by the king, they are said to have been conducted to an island by Demetrius, who wrote down the renderings on which they agreed by mutual conference; and thus the work is stated to have been completed in
seventy-two days. The translators are then said to have received from the king most abundant rewards; and the Jews are stated to have asked permissions to take copies of the version.
Other additions were subsequently made to this story: some said that each translator was shut into a separate cell, and that
all by divine inspiration made their versions word for word alike; others said that there were two in each cell, accompanied by an amanuensis; but at all events miracle and direct inspiration were supposed to be connected with the translation: hence we cannot wonder that the authority attached to this version in the minds of those who believed these stories was almost unbounded.
1. Septuagint is
NOT Word-To-Word Translation. If you know Hebrew and translate 1 chapter of Deuteronomy or Exodus and compare with Septuagint, you can easily notice it is not Word-to-Word Translation.
But your article is saying that 72 scholars translated on the principle of Word-to-Word, which can hardly be found.
2. If LXX was translated on such Word-to-Word principle, there might be least chance of all translations' exact conformity. However, it is not and therefore the story that 72 scholars translated it within 72 days, and the result was exactly the same, even onbe single letter, because of the divine inspiration, is a Hoax.
If there were so much divine inspiration among the Jews, they may have achieved the independence from Ptolemy kingdom.
3. The site do not mention that the translation was limited to Torah only, which is quite famous, not the whole Old Testament. So, the currently available Septuagint must have not originated thence.
4. You said there is the Pre-Christ Septuagint extant. I was surprised to hear that, because it can shock the whole world!
The oldest OT is dated back 330-350AD which is Vatican Text and located in Vatican, then Sinaiticus dated ca 350AD is located in British Museum.
In 20 c Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered which dates back to Pre-Christ era. Samaritan Pentateuch is just Pentateuch and dates back to around 400 AD, then Oldest Masoretic Text dates back to 10c.
Now let me ask you where is the oldest Septuagint, which is Pre-Christ text, located? Where is the Oldest Septuagint?
So-called scholars always manipulate the story, and you may be bewitched, I am afraid.
5. You don't need to go far away to verify the truth.
As I showed you, you can compare between Greek NT and Spetuagint. Are they conforming each other? I showed 5 verses where both are NOT conforming each other! Why did it happen? Is it because they translated on Word-to-Word principle ?
6. Again, one of the important fact is that LXX always goes with Apocrypha.
7. Have you checked LXX differs between the chapters? Compare the number of Israelites in Exodus 1:5 and Deut 10:22.
If anyone tranlate OT based on LXX, the spiritual meanings will be lost a lot or will sound ridiculous.
Again I don't trust the people who do not behave according to what they believe!
If they believe LXX is the most accurate, then why don't they translate the entire OT based on LXX?
NIV defaces Mark 16:9-20 or John 8:1-11. Then why don't they delete them? Can you trust such people ?
