Most Likely, You’ve Never Read the True Bible in English

[shepherdsword]

@shepherdsword , @cardiologist

The question was, what to believe, the Septuagint used in the time of Jesus, the NT is based on OR the Masoretic Text, created in the 10th century and in use today.

And the answer is they are both valid. The Masoretic aligns with the dead sea scrolls better in some places and the LXX better in others. The NT quotes the LXX 70%-80% of the time and the Masoretic 20%-30% of the time so they are both used. I am still wondering what translation had "the account of my transgressions" in psalm 22. It's not in the Masoretic or the LXX. Where did you get that from?

 

[ProDeo]

And the answer is they are both valid. The Masoretic aligns with the dead sea scrolls better in some places and the LXX better in others. The NT quotes the LXX 70%-80% of the time and the Masoretic 20%-30% of the time so they are both used. I am still wondering what translation had "the account of my transgressions" in psalm 22. It's not in the Masoretic or the LXX. Where did you get that from?

Brenton translation

O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

It can be reasoned that Paul (with the Septuagint in mind) wrote :

2Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Personally I find the thought farfetched.

 

[ProDeo]

The "Septuagint" is fine as a translation. Just as a good english translation is still a good edition of the Bible. But it can never replace the original language, and this is the actual words of God in it's purest form.

Also, people seem to accept as a given that there is this "Septuagint", the official Greek translation of the whole Old Testament. That's not the case. The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek by the 70 (or 72) was actually only the first five books of Moses. But there were many other Greek translations aswell, also of the whole Old Testament. And people editied them, too, just as today, when we make a Bible translation better. We call it then the revised, or the new version of that specific Bible.

Watch this, from the fine and widely accepted evangelical scholar Peter J. Williams:

I don't doubt the good intentions of translators.

What worries me is that dominant OT Scripture since ~250-50 BC was valid for ~1800 years was wiped out by the dominant KJV around AD 1600 and replaced by the Masoretic Text created between AD 700-1000.

 

[Wick Stick]

What is a "veiled women", in the ancient near east, but a woman whom no man had known? The word does indeed have such a meaning, but it was the custom of that time and culture to keep women of any esteem from the common or public conversation. They were kept hidden.

And so you will find in the bible, that Isaacs future wife Rebekah is called with that very name "Almah" (in Genesis 24:43), of whom it is expressly said, that she was a virgin, and that no man had known her (in Genesis 24:16).

So that argument doesn't hold.

In Isaiah, the woman in question is one who has been devoted to the temple. As such, she would have had a vow of chastity. Cf Jephthah's daughter. Here, "virgin" is not only an adjective to describe her, it's also her title. Her job is "temple virgin."

That may seem like a subtle differentiation, but it matters, because in Isaiah, the "temple virgin" does indeed become pregnant, but it happens in the conventional way. The prophet takes her for his wife and impregnates her (contrary to her vows, but at God's command)

But you also said:

Here, for all the alleged places, I would like to have some proof that the New Testament writers actually quote the "Septuagint".

I'm not interested in proving things to you. You can either do the work comparing them yourself, read a book, or take a class.

 

[Hiddenthings]

There are serious issues comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic Text, Isa 53 and Psalm 22 as examples.

ESV - Ps 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

LXX - O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

We are used to understand Psalm 22 as a prophecy of Jesus crucified, but in the LXX it's about David.

Pro, I know you believe, as I do that Christ was sinless. But in what sense was he “made to be sin” for us? And with that understanding, can you see how he could experience the same groaning we do, yet remain without sin?

 

[shepherdsword]

Brenton translation

O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

It can be reasoned that Paul (with the Septuagint in mind) wrote :

2Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Personally I find the thought farfetched.

Yes, he just made that up. Benton did use the LXX but that verbiage is not in any text, Hebrew or Greek.

 

[shepherdsword]

I don't doubt the good intentions of translators.

What worries me is that dominant OT Scripture since ~250-50 BC was valid for ~1800 years was wiped out by the dominant KJV around AD 1600 and replaced by the Masoretic Text created between AD 700-1000.

I wouldn't worry about it. Nothing of any major concern is different and no doctrine is affected. Mostly grammar, spelling and syntax with a few minor variants. Don't let anyone persuade you that the bible we have today is not the authoritative word of God. I am of the opinion God allowed the variants to drive away nit picking pharisaical types who swat at gnats and swallow camels.