Fundamental Preaching.com

I wanted to share this quite interesting link.

Septuagint Hoax

Very good article! Too bad most won't pay heed to it.

How right Mongol you are.

The problem with that article is that Josephus writing about 80-90 AD mentions the translation of the scriptures into Greek, so they must have been before 300 AD. As regards the 72 and 70, Josephus says that two of the original 72 died during the translation, and that is why it is known as LXX. So really that article doesn't hold any water.

Davo Wrote:The problem with that article is that Josephus writing about 80-90 AD mentions the translation of the scriptures into Greek, so they must have been before 300 AD. As regards the 72 and 70, Josephus says that two of the original 72 died during the translation, and that is why it is known as LXX. So really that article doesn't hold any water.

Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by Papias Ireneus Origin Eusebius Epiphaneus Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

Davo also Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

I have God`s Word infallible,inerrant,preserved as He promised KJV.Amen!

james516 Wrote:

Davo Wrote:The problem with that article is that Josephus writing about 80-90 AD mentions the translation of the scriptures into Greek, so they must have been before 300 AD. As regards the 72 and 70, Josephus says that two of the original 72 died during the translation, and that is why it is known as LXX. So really that article doesn't hold any water.

Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by Papias Ireneus Origin Eusebius Epiphaneus Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

Davo also Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

I have God`s Word infallible,inerrant,preserved as He promised KJV.Amen!

Interesting Bible Article

james516 Wrote:

Davo Wrote:The problem with that article is that Josephus writing about 80-90 AD mentions the translation of the scriptures into Greek, so they must have been before 300 AD. As regards the 72 and 70, Josephus says that two of the original 72 died during the translation, and that is why it is known as LXX. So really that article doesn't hold any water.

Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by Papias Ireneus Origin Eusebius Epiphaneus Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

Davo also Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

I have God`s Word infallible,inerrant,preserved as He promised KJV.Amen!

That is not the argument. The point is whether the scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ. Josephus says they were.

An associated point is whether in the Greek NT scriptures we have the actual words of the Lord, or a translation.

David Cloud, KJV only, says, if I remember correctly, that in the NT gospels, we have the actual words of Christ. He also believes that the LXX was written after the NT period. Now I would ask, If the Lord spoke Greek which version would he have used.

I personally have no views on the matter. It just seems contradictory to me.

Davo Wrote:

james516 Wrote:

Davo Wrote:The problem with that article is that Josephus writing about 80-90 AD mentions the translation of the scriptures into Greek, so they must have been before 300 AD. As regards the 72 and 70, Josephus says that two of the original 72 died during the translation, and that is why it is known as LXX. So really that article doesn't hold any water.

Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by Papias Ireneus Origin Eusebius Epiphaneus Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

Davo also Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

I have God`s Word infallible,inerrant,preserved as He promised KJV.Amen!

That is not the argument. The point is whether the scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ. Josephus says they were.

An associated point is whether in the Greek NT scriptures we have the actual words of the Lord, or a translation.

David Cloud, KJV only, says, if I remember correctly, that in the NT gospels, we have the actual words of Christ. He also believes that the LXX was written after the NT period. Now I would ask, If the Lord spoke Greek which version would he have used.

I personally have no views on the matter. It just seems contradictory to me.

Davo you should have views on the matter {i.e.concerns}.



Should we be concerned that some New Testament quotations from the Old Testament were taken from a Greek translation—the Septuagint—rather than from the Hebrew Masoretic Text? Greek was the most universal language at the time when the New Testament was being written.


Gentile converts were unfamiliar with the Hebrew language and
even most Jews outside of Palestine no longer had a goodreading
knowledge of Hebrew.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that had been made in Egypt.


But it was not the only Greek translation of the Old Testament available in the time when the New Testament was written. There was at least one Greek translation that differed significantly from the Septuagint. It was used by Theodotion in the second century ad for his revised Greek text of the Old Testament. The book of Daniel, as preserved in Greek translation by Theodotion, matches far more closely the quotations from Daniel in the New Testament than does the Septuagint, for instance.

Though none of the Greek translations of the Old Testament were totally accurate, most of their deviations from the Hebrew text were in areas that did not affect the overall sense of the message.

Extant Greek translations of the Old Testament, including the Septuagint, are quoted in the Greek New Testament where they either properly translate or paraphrase the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text. In cases where the readily available first century Greek translations were unusable, the New Testament writers made their own direct translation or paraphrase from Hebrew into Greek.

Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno in their comprehensive work, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text.

The New Testament writers only made use of Septuagint quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text. A valid meaning could be conveyed in cases even where the Septuagint offered more of a paraphrase or an interpretation than a literal translation of the Hebrew. What about surviving New Testament texts?

There are literally thousands of complete or partial Greek manuscripts which survive from early times. The oldest is a fragment of John’s gospel that is dated to around 130ad, only about 30 years after John’s death (Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 93).

Most of the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us are of what scholars call the Byzantine (or Antiochan) family of texts. These manuscripts, though not the oldest, are the ones preserved by the Greek church. Because they represent the vast majority of Greek manuscripts they are sometimes referred to as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus.

This is the text from which the King James translation of the New Testament was made. However, beginning in 1881, other Greek texts have been published that have been the basis for nearly all subsequent translations, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New English Bible.

These published texts have relied heavily upon two ancient Greek manuscripts, called Codex Vaticanus (also known as ‘B’) and Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph). Where did these manuscripts originate?

Vaticanus was "discovered" in the Vatican in 1481 and was released as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible in 1582. It differs from the Textus Receptus in nearly 8,000 places.

The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, reveals that Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one as late as the twelfth century. Noted scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger states: "A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand." The corrector "omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 74).


The Sinaiticus manuscripts were discovered by Constantine von Tischendorf in a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1850s. They differ in about 9,000 places from the traditional Byzantine Text (Textus Receptus). Dr. Bruce Metzger describes the carelessness of transmission that marks the Sinaiticus manuscripts. He declared that at least nine "correctors" had worked on the manuscripts over the centuries.

"Tichendorf’s edition of the manuscript enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text" (p. 77). Later use of ultra-violet lamps showed multiple additional places where the original reading had been erased.

Not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, but also they disagree with one another perhaps a dozen times on every page. While many of these disagreements are small and may involve merely a preposition or the spelling of a word, others omit whole verses such as the ending of Mark’s gospel.

When the Apostle John put our New Testament into its final form, shortly before his death at the end of the first century, he was living in Ephesus, a Greek-speaking city located near the western coast of ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey). This is the same city that had served as the repository of the copies of Paul’s writings decades earlier.

It is the city used in Revelation 2 to represent the entire first stage of the Church of God. The Greek manuscripts that come from this area are the ones labeled by scholars as the Byzantine type.


Scholars fleeing from the Turkish invasion in the 15th century brought copies of Byzantine texts west. Many of these Greek scholars and the manuscripts that they brought with them ended up in the area of Basel, Switzerland after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

It is from these manuscripts that printed texts of Erasmus (1516) and Stephens (1520) were primarily derived. Stephen’s printed text was known as the Textus Receptus and was the accepted standard of the Greek New Testament until the latter part of the 19th century.

Since the 19th century, Bible translation has undergone a further change. Dismissing the idea that the Bible was supernaturally inspired and preserved, many scholars have taken the approach that the oldest manuscripts, whatever their source, are closer to the original and therefore must be more accurate.

Most 20th century Bible translations, apart from the New King James Version, have used these texts touted by such critics, and relegated the readings of officially preserved texts to footnotes. While these translations can be useful for Bible study, they should be treated with caution, and not accepted to the exclusion of the more historically sound texts.

The Creator God not only inspired the writing of the Bible, He also guided the process of both canonization and preservation of the text. In spite of numerous attempts by carnal men through the centuries to suppress or distort the word of God, God has been faithful to ensure that His "instruction book" for life is still available for us today.

Source:

Wanted to share Greek Tims article he so kindly copied and pasted @ free sunday school lesson forum from this thread in FBP the LXX Hoax without me even knowing it.Sneaky indeed GT.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


KJVO's hate the LXX


I thought you might like to see these 2 links. THe first was on another forum that referred me to the 2nd.

1) http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/lxx-...-1438.html

2) http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/LXXHOAX.htm

Here is my response to the 2nd link's 5 points to discredit the LXX's historicity.

1. THe kings of Judah (just in case you weren't sure, that is not from the tribe of Levi) were also told to make a copy of the Law (cf. Duet 17:18). So...

2. I am pretty sure Christ returned to Egypt as a small child w/ His parents.

3. Didn't the KJV contain the apocryphal books too? hmmm...

4. Guilty by association does not discredit the historicity of the LXX being pre-NT. Actually, this would accord w/ their argument. If the LXX was post-NT, that means it copied from the TR (or what they refer to as the TR). So wouldn't that mean that the corrupt LXX borrowed from something else corrupt? So which is worse?

5. Maybe by mss, the LXX cannot be traced historically, but it can be validated by people making mention of it existing in the past (including historians like Josephus). In fact, aren't 99% of the TR mss 8th century and later? Does this invalidated the TR too?

Hope you enjoyed these links. I know I did.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 3:30 "He must increase;"
--------------------
Check out my theology blog: http://www.debatingtheologicalissues.blogspot.com


Brother Millers finished comment:

NO:Anti-KJVO`s hate the MT/TR:lol:

James,

The only point I was intending to make was that the LXX was made before NT times. What use was made of it I have no idea.

Davo maybe you need to read this?


LXX Pre NT Hoax

Quote:Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew

Where did you get this information? Are you trying to state that the epistles and books of the NT were originally penned in Hebrew? I want to make sure I am clear on what you are trying to say.

Jim Wrote:

Quote:Davo a study of the writings of the Christian Church Fathers shows that much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew

Where did you get this information? Are you trying to state that the epistles and books of the NT were originally penned in Hebrew? I want to make sure I am clear on what you are trying to say.

Brother Jim look at this.



Hebrew/Greek NT

Yes, I have seen yashanet before. I cannot agree with these sentiments though. There is very, very little evidence at all that any NT manuscript was originally penned in Hebrew. It is a pretty closed case that Paul's epstles were penned in Greek. I won't be as dogmatic of the others, but I tend to lean that almost all, if not all were originally penned in koine and classical Greek.

Now, that being said, in reference to the "early fathers", one would be advised greatly to study the lives of Papias, Ireneus, Origin, Eusubius, Epiphaneus, Jerome and Clement of Alexandria. Some of these men were downright satanic.

Just some thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Yes brother Jim I agree with you.To think the heretical fathers behind the Text in modern versions.It is unacceptable plain and simple.

In Christ

Brother Miller