The Greek Septuagint

[journey42]

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 17 2013,00:03)

The Greek Septuagint — some Christians swear by it, and other Christians have never heard of it. It is common for the new-age bible version defenders to call upon the Greek Septuagint in their time of weakness, but as we will demonstrate in this article, the Greek Septuagint never existed. “The Codex Semitics and the Codex Vaticanus are versions of the Old Testament derived from the Greek Sptuagint, which scholars date to around 350 A.D. New Testament writers often used the Septuagint when they quoted from the Old Testament.” “The Christians in Carthage were taking the Septuagint as the standard… a new standard developed over time, that being the Septuagint. It became, by traditional usage, the Bible for these Christians.” As you can see, many Christian authors are backing up this “Septuagint” as manuscript evidence in defense of things like “Codex Vaticanus,” which was developed by pagan, heretical men who did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and one of the very few manuscripts used to produce the Catholic bible versions, and likewise, many subsequent new-age versions we see today. “THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS” There is a letter called “The Letter of Aristeas,” that describes a translation of the Old Testament, from Hebrew to Greek, that was sent to Alexandria, Egypt by Biblical scholars in Jerusalem. The supposedly “official” document referred to in “The Letter to Aristeas” is called the LXX, or known today as The Septuagint, because it was said to have been translated by 72 Jewish scholars. (LXX is roman numerals for 70, but there were 72 translators, so why it is not called LXXII is anyone's guess.) The end of the Old Testament is around 397 B.C., and the Septuagint is supposedly dated around 250 B.C., which is in a roughly 400 year period of Biblical silence up until the birth of Christ. Before we go into detail, it should be emphasized that the “Letter of Aristeas,” is the ONLY evidence for the existence of the Septuagint. There are no Greek Old Testament manuscripts that are dated at 250 B.C. in the known world. At the very least, it would be logical to expect Jewish historical data to confirm such a project, since sending the Law of God out in Hebrew format out of Israel would have been taken incredibly seriously, let alone a translation of the law and prophets into a foreign language, but no such Jewish document exists even hinting at such a project. Objections will immediately be raised by those who use the Septuagint as a source, claiming that Origen of Alexandria's Hexapla (an edition of the Bible in six versions) has a column that he copied directly from the Septuagint, but based on what evidence other than vague claims? Even if they want to make that argument, Origen's Hexapla was written about 200 A.D., over 100 years after the New Testament was completed, and contains apocryphal books (e.g. Judith, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, etc) which were never accepted as part of Scripture by the Jews, and only accepted as Scripture by the Roman Catholic church 200 years later. If Origen copied directly from the Septuagint, that means the Septuagint contained the apocryphal books, and that means the 72 Jewish scholars would had to have added in the apocryphal books BEFORE they were originally authored! (Either that, or Origen added to the Word of God and made them up himself, which is a directly violation of Rev 22:18) In fact, the ONLY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament from before the time of Christ in existance today is Ryland's Papyrus #458, which contains only 6 chapters of Deuteronomy. That's it. Someone might have a creative imagination about the “Septuagint,” but we have no historical evidence for the a Greek edition of the Old Testament before the time of Christ, and historians know that filling in the blanks with whatever they please is not considered proper research. This gets even stranger when we realize that “Aristeas” may never have existed. In fact, in this author's research, I can find no mention of any historical references of an “Aristeas” who lived during the day the letter was said to have been written. It is not certain if an Aristeas ever existed, but a large foundation is placed by new-age bible defenders on the “Septuagint,” which does not exist, and that is based solely on the author of a letter who also may not exist, or at the very least, lied about his identity. “The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity. The supposed 'librarian,' Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus. The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his 'naval victory over Antigonus' (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud.” There are Biblical problems with the Septuagint as well; one of the biggest being that it was supposed to be comprised of scholars from all twelve tribes of Israel for translation. All throughout the Old Testament, the Levites were the keepers of God's Word (Deut 31:25-36) and the temple, so why would the other tribes violate the position given by God specifically to the Levites to oversee? Why are the new-age bible defenders so eager to put the Septuagint on a pedestal, despite the fact th at is has no historical evidence to back it up, and powerful arguments are easily made against it? I think we can end this article with a quote from Sam Gipp, scholar of Greek and Hebrew, who says it best: “Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.” I did not write this article in my own words, for it is easy to understand. Journey42

Mike

Before you try and convince me that the KJV was translated from the LXX,
tell me if this article is a lie?

Then tell me why you don't believe that God can preserve his word in one book? and why don't you trust him or his words?
Did God leave his “holy word” in the hands of men?

[journey42]

To all

The reason why I started this post in the first place, was to show you guys on heaven net, that the Greek Septuagint’s (LXX), origins raise some hairy questions.
Can we start from there please.
Was the article true or false?  (refer to my opening post)

Please answer me either “Yes”, your source is correct, or “If Not”, please provide some evidence that the article is false.

If we have a starting point, we can then slowly lead up to the harder questions, but I would like my questions answered first please.

And Mike, this one's especially for you!

[terraricca]

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,19:07)

Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 17 2013,00:03) The Greek Septuagint — some Christians swear by it, and other Christians have never heard of it. It is common for the new-age bible version defenders to call upon the Greek Septuagint in their time of weakness, but as we will demonstrate in this article, the Greek Septuagint never existed. “The Codex Semitics and the Codex Vaticanus are versions of the Old Testament derived from the Greek Sptuagint, which scholars date to around 350 A.D. New Testament writers often used the Septuagint when they quoted from the Old Testament.” “The Christians in Carthage were taking the Septuagint as the standard… a new standard developed over time, that being the Septuagint. It became, by traditional usage, the Bible for these Christians.” As you can see, many Christian authors are backing up this “Septuagint” as manuscript evidence in defense of things like “Codex Vaticanus,” which was developed by pagan, heretical men who did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and one of the very few manuscripts used to produce the Catholic bible versions, and likewise, many subsequent new-age versions we see today. “THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS” There is a letter called “The Letter of Aristeas,” that describes a translation of the Old Testament, from Hebrew to Greek, that was sent to Alexandria, Egypt by Biblical scholars in Jerusalem. The supposedly “official” document referred to in “The Letter to Aristeas” is called the LXX, or known today as The Septuagint, because it was said to have been translated by 72 Jewish scholars. (LXX is roman numerals for 70, but there were 72 translators, so why it is not called LXXII is anyone's guess.) The end of the Old Testament is around 397 B.C., and the Septuagint is supposedly dated around 250 B.C., which is in a roughly 400 year period of Biblical silence up until the birth of Christ. Before we go into detail, it should be emphasized that the “Letter of Aristeas,” is the ONLY evidence for the existence of the Septuagint. There are no Greek Old Testament manuscripts that are dated at 250 B.C. in the known world. At the very least, it would be logical to expect Jewish historical data to confirm such a project, since sending the Law of God out in Hebrew format out of Israel would have been taken incredibly seriously, let alone a translation of the law and prophets into a foreign language, but no such Jewish document exists even hinting at such a project. Objections will immediately be raised by those who use the Septuagint as a source, claiming that Origen of Alexandria's Hexapla (an edition of the Bible in six versions) has a column that he copied directly from the Septuagint, but based on what evidence other than vague claims? Even if they want to make that argument, Origen's Hexapla was written about 200 A.D., over 100 years after the New Testament was completed, and contains apocryphal books (e.g. Judith, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, etc) which were never accepted as part of Scripture by the Jews, and only accepted as Scripture by the Roman Catholic church 200 years later. If Origen copied directly from the Septuagint, that means the Septuagint contained the apocryphal books, and that means the 72 Jewish scholars would had to have added in the apocryphal books BEFORE they were originally authored! (Either that, or Origen added to the Word of God and made them up himself, which is a directly violation of Rev 22:18) In fact, the ONLY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament from before the time of Christ in existance today is Ryland's Papyrus #458, which contains only 6 chapters of Deuteronomy. That's it. Someone might have a creative imagination about the “Septuagint,” but we have no historical evidence for the a Greek edition of the Old Testament before the time of Christ, and historians know that filling in the blanks with whatever they please is not considered proper research. This gets even stranger when we realize that “Aristeas” may never have existed. In fact, in this author's research, I can find no mention of any historical references of an “Aristeas” who lived during the day the letter was said to have been written. It is not certain if an Aristeas ever existed, but a large foundation is placed by new-age bible defenders on the “Septuagint,” which does not exist, and that is based solely on the author of a letter who also may not exist, or at the very least, lied about his identity. “The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity. The supposed 'librarian,' Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus. The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his 'naval victory over Antigonus' (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud.” There are Biblical problems with the Septuagint as well; one of the biggest being that it was supposed to be comprised of scholars from all twelve tribes of Israel for translation. All throughout the Old Testament, the Levites were the keepers of God's Word (Deut 31:25-36) and t he temple, so why would the other tribes violate the position given by God specifically to the Levites to oversee? Why are the new-age bible defenders so eager to put the Septuagint on a pedestal, despite the fact that is has no historical evidence to back it up, and powerful arguments are easily made against it? I think we can end this article with a quote from Sam Gipp, scholar of Greek and Hebrew, who says it best: “Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.” I did not write this article in my own words, for it is easy to understand. Journey42 Mike Before you try and convince me that the KJV was translated from the LXX, tell me if this article is a lie? Then tell me why you don't believe that God can preserve his word in one book?  and why don't you trust him or his words? Did God leave his “holy word” in the hands of men?

j42

is this your own made post and info that you personally compost ,or is it some thing you found on the internet ,???

curious

[terraricca]

all

encyclopedia britanica

Letter of Aristeas, pseudepigraphal work of pseudo-history produced in Alexandria, probably in the mid-2nd century bc, to promote the cause of Judaism. Though the size and prestige of the Jewish community had already secured for itself a definite place in Alexandrian society and serious anti-Semitism had not yet gained currency, the Jewish community was in conflict. While some Jews embraced Greek culture and philosophy, others refused any rapprochement with Hellenistic culture. The author’s purpose was to present Judaism in a favourable light to pagans and make strict observance of religious laws attractive to Hellenistic Jews. The author assumed the name of a 2nd-century-bc writer and purported to give a contemporary account of the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, into Greek. He presented himself as a pagan admirer of Judaism who held a high position in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 bc) in Alexandria. The writer used current Hellenistic literary conventions and the technical language of the Alexandrian court, but his Greek style and several historical inaccuracies indicate that he was a deliberate archaist. His concern for the welfare of Jewish slaves, his romantic picture of Palestinian Jewry, and his efforts to explain the theory behind Jewish dietary laws mark him as a Jew rather than a pagan.

Modern scholars call this work a “letter” because it was addressed by Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. The narrative draws upon a wide variety of sources: a report on Egyptian Jews from official archives, texts of Ptolemaic legal decrees, administrative memoranda preserved in royal files or in the Alexandria library, accounts of pilgrimages to Jerusalem, a treatise on the ideals of kingship, and an apology for Jewish law. The first writer to quote directly from the Letter was the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century ad). Several early Christians also used the book, ignoring its Jewish apologetic features.

TOPICS

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,07:07)

Mike Before you try and convince me that the KJV was translated from the LXX, tell me if this article is a lie?

journey,

I have no reason to even read that article, since I've just listed PROOF of the LXX a couple of pages ago on this thread.

The wording, “in vain do they worship me, teaching the commands of men as doctrines” is NOT EVEN IN the Hebrew OT.

But that wording IS in the LXX.  And in Mark 7, Jesus quoted THAT WORDING – thereby PROVING that the LXX did exist in the time of Jesus, and that is was quoted in the NT.

So any amount of words trying to convince someone it DIDN'T exist are worthless, because the PROOF of its existence is in the words of Jesus and the Apostles – and written down in the NT for all to see.

That being said, I have never claimed the KJV was translated from the LXX – although Kerwin has shown one particular KJV OT scripture that clearly was.

Besides, what's wrong with the LXX?  Did you know that the early church fathers considered the LXX the final authority on any matter about which they were having a disagreement?  If there were different understandings of a Hebrew text, they looked to the LXX as the definitive authority, and all who were involved in the disagreement agreed to adhere to how the LXX had it translated. The LXX was the final word in any disagreement of the Hebrew text.

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,07:07)

Then tell me why you don't believe that God can preserve his word in one book?  and why don't you trust him or his words? Did God leave his “holy word” in the hands of men?

I believe God HAS preserved His unaltered word.  He's preserved it in the ancient Hebrew and Greek mss that we are constantly uncovering.  God has His hand in all of this, journey……… because God knows how badly His written word has been mangled by men through the years.

You don't know how good we have it today.  Remember when a regular person couldn't even OWN a Bible?  And they had to have their scriptures hand-fed to them from the priests…….. who could tell them whatever they wanted to tell them?

Then, we could all OWN Bibles, but those Bibles taught only what the English translators WANTED THEM TO TEACH.  For example, we had no way of knowing the truth behind the Greek words of John 1:1 back then.  We had to just accept, “and the Word was God” – because that's how it was translated by Trinitarian men.

And now look at what you did in the other thread.  Not only can you see all the different ways the Hebrew word “shachah” can be translated, but you can even find which way it was translated in each KJV scripture.  And then YOU, loaded with the same exact knowledge those who translated the KJV had, can make YOUR OWN decision as to whether or not they translated it correctly in each of those verses.

And we can do this with EVERY SINGLE Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word in the entire Bible, journey.  All with a few clicks of a mouse!  

What a wonderful age to be a Bible student!  Praise Jah!

[terraricca]

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,20:04)

To all The reason why I started this post in the first place, was to show you guys on heaven net, that the Greek Septuagint’s (LXX), origins raise some hairy questions. Can we start from there please. Was the article true or false?  (refer to my opening post) Please answer me either “Yes”, your source is correct, or “If Not”,  please provide some evidence that the article is false. If we have a starting point, we can then slowly lead up to the harder questions, but I would like my questions answered first please. And Mike, this one's especially for you!

J42

MY DOCUMENTS I HAVE SHOWN DO NOT AGREE WITH YOURS IN TOTAL,WHY IS THAT

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,08:04)

Please answer me either “Yes”, your source is correct, or “If Not”, please provide some evidence that the article is false. And Mike, this one's especially for you!

Matthew 15:9 King James Version
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:7 King James Version
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Those NT scriptures show Jesus quoting Isaiah 29:13.

The LXX version of Isaiah 29:13 says,

And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

Now, I want you to look in the HEBREW version of Isaiah 29:13, and find those bolded words that Jesus quoted.

If you cannot find them in the HEBREW of 29:13, then will you concede that Jesus was quoting the LXX version of 29:13?

[Wakeup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 19 2013,11:44)

Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,07:07) Mike Before you try and convince me that the KJV was translated from the LXX, tell me if this article is a lie? journey, I have no reason to even read that article, since I've just listed PROOF of the LXX a couple of pages ago on this thread. The wording, “in vain do they worship me, teaching the commands of men as doctrines” is NOT EVEN IN the Hebrew OT. But that wording IS in the LXX.  And in Mark 7, Jesus quoted THAT WORDING – thereby PROVING that the LXX did exist in the time of Jesus, and that is was quoted in the NT. So any amount of words trying to convince someone it DIDN'T exist are worthless, because the PROOF of its existence is in the words of Jesus and the Apostles – and written down in the NT for all to see. That being said, I have never claimed the KJV was translated from the LXX – although Kerwin has shown one particular KJV OT scripture that clearly was. Besides, what's wrong with the LXX?  Did you know that the early church fathers considered the LXX the final authority on any matter about which they were having a disagreement?  If there were different understandings of a Hebrew text, they looked to the LXX as the definitive authority, and all who were involved in the disagreement agreed to adhere to how the LXX had it translated.  The LXX was the final word in any disagreement of the Hebrew text. Quote (journey42 @ Dec. 18 2013,07:07) Then tell me why you don't believe that God can preserve his word in one book?  and why don't you trust him or his words? Did God leave his “holy word” in the hands of men? I believe God HAS preserved His unaltered word.  He's preserved it in the ancient Hebrew and Greek mss that we are constantly uncovering.  God has His hand in all of this, journey……… because God knows how badly His written word has been mangled by men through the years. You don't know how good we have it today.  Remember when a regular person couldn't even OWN a Bible?  And they had to have their scriptures hand-fed to them from the priests…….. who could tell them whatever they wanted to tell them? Then, we could all OWN Bibles, but those Bibles taught only what the English translators WANTED THEM TO TEACH.  For example, we had no way of knowing the truth behind the Greek words of John 1:1 back then.  We had to just accept, “and the Word was God” – because that's how it was translated by Trinitarian men. And now look at what you did in the other thread.  Not only can you see all the different ways the Hebrew word “shachah” can be translated, but you can even find which way it was translated in each KJV scripture.  And then YOU, loaded with the same exact knowledge those who translated the KJV had, can make YOUR OWN decision as to whether or not they translated it correctly in each of those verses. And we can do this with EVERY SINGLE Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word in the entire Bible, journey.  All with a few clicks of a mouse!   What a wonderful age to be a Bible student!  Praise Jah!

MikeB.

Dont make a habit of thanking man, and technology.
Always thank God;it's all his work.Everything.

I dont think that the greeks has hold of the scriptures before Christ,for the old testament was for the jews only.
The gospels were wtitten by the apostles.

Since Paul only: was the gospels preached to the gentiles.
Do not depend on those corrupt theologians.
They are ALL corrupt.
Proof: See the confusion amongst themselves,and the churches have been led into confusion.

Time is very short. Seek the truth,and be set free.

wakeup.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 18 2013,19:06)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 19 2013,11:44) What a wonderful age to be a Bible student!  Praise Jah! MikeB. Dont make a habit of thanking man, and technology. Always thank God;it's all his work.Everything.

Ah, you must not have recognized my last words on that post, since those words aren't in the KJV.  

The Hebrew word “hallelujah” means “praise Jah!” – “Jah” being a shortened form of God's name Jehovah.

And you must not have read these words that I wrote to journey in the Matthew 4:4 thread today:

Thankfully for us who live in this day and age, we have access to the UNCORRUPTED scriptures.  We have something to test those corrupted versions against now.

Thank God, for HE is the one who has done this, and it is good.

But your point is taken.

[terraricca]

W

Quote

Since Paul only: was the gospels preached to the gentiles. Do not depend on those corrupt theologians.

WAS CORNELIUS A JEW THAT IS NEWS TO ME ;BECAUSE IT WAS PETER THAT WAS CALLED TO HIM NOT PAUL

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 19 2013,07:24)

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 18 2013,19:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 19 2013,11:44) What a wonderful age to be a Bible student!  Praise Jah! MikeB. Dont make a habit of thanking man, and technology. Always thank God;it's all his work.Everything. Ah, you must not have recognized my last words on that post, since those words aren't in the KJV.   The Hebrew word “hallelujah” means “praise Jah!” – “Jah” being a shortened form of God's name Jehovah. And you must not have read these words that I wrote to journey in the Matthew 4:4 thread today: Thankfully for us who live in this day and age, we have access to the UNCORRUPTED scriptures.  We have something to test those corrupted versions against now. Thank God, for HE is the one who has done this, and it is good. But your point is taken.

Mike

in this I do not understand Wakeup comment I must have mised something ;

so it would be bad to say :”IT IS GOOD FOR US TO LIVE IN THIS AGE WERE WE CAN SEE AND TOUCH THE CHRIST WHILE HE WALK THE EARTH AND SEE ALL THESE MIRACLES  “PRAISE  JAH.

[mikeboll64]

I think Wakeup missed the “Praise Jah” part of my post.  I think he thought I was praising the MEN and TECHNOLOGY that have given us the internet, etc.

I think he now realizes that I gave the thanks and credit for these things to God.  

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT.

Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.    

Note:  Masoretic Text

[Wakeup]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 20 2013,14:43)

Mike, Quote No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT. Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.     Note:  Masoretic Text

I hope All you guys here labour to be in Christ,
not to be rabi scholars.

wakeup.

[terraricca]

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 20 2013,12:00)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 20 2013,14:43) Mike, Quote No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT. Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.     Note:  Masoretic Text I hope All you guys here labour to be in Christ, not to be rabi scholars. wakeup.

W

Our interest is the truth ,the way that God REALY said it ,

[Wakeup]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 20 2013,17:38)

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 20 2013,12:00) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 20 2013,14:43) Mike, Quote No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT. Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.     Note:  Masoretic Text I hope All you guys here labour to be in Christ, not to be rabi scholars. wakeup. W Our interest is the truth ,the way that God REALY said it ,

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

wakeup.

[kerwin]

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 20 2013,12:00)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 20 2013,14:43) Mike, Quote No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT. Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.     Note:  Masoretic Text I hope All you guys here labour to be in Christ, not to be rabi scholars. wakeup.

Wakeup,

I have no idea what being a rabbi scholar has to do with anything.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2013,21:43)

Mike, Quote No.  The LXX is the Greek translation OF the Hebrew MT. Not exactly but your intent is correct.  The MT its origins in a group that that existed between the 7th and 10th Century.  According to the same Wikipedia article quotes the words 'by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT'.     Note:  Masoretic Text

You are right. In answer #1 AND answer #2, I meant to write “Hebrew OT”, not “Hebrew MT”.

Sorry for the slip up.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 20 2013,07:28)

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 20 2013,17:38) Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 20 2013,12:00) I hope All you guys here labour to be in Christ, not to be rabi scholars. wakeup. W Our interest is the truth ,the way that God REALY said it , Matthew 11:29   Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  Matthew 11:30   For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. wakeup.

And isn't it WONDERFUL how EASY God and Jesus have made our yoke through the internet?

Isn't it GREAT how much EASIER it is to learn of Jesus from the ever-older mss that are constantly being uncovered?

Good scripture of support, Wakeup. Thank you for those.

[mikeboll64]

Oh, and Kerwin has brought up another NT verse that is quoting the LXX.

Hebrews 1:6
But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

That is a quote from Deuteronomy 32:43. But you won't find those words in the MT version of 32:43…….. which is why they aren't in the KJV version of 32:43.

But look at the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43………

Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God do obeisance to him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.

[Author]

Posts