Is our Bible of 66 Books, the inerrant Word of God?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kerwin said:
Fraud or not, I treat it as rumor. It is irrelevant because it is merely a back story to explain the existense of the Koine Greek manuscripts existense and it is used as a lable for all of them. In short there is a version of Koine Greek Scripture we call the LXX. It exists and that is its name because we call it that,

The experts consider the Letter of Aristeas as Jewish propaganda and it has not been proven a fraud though there has been some controversy about that among experts. The controversy is who wrote it and was when it claims and by the author it claims to be or by an author that used that name and penned it fifty years later. Both dates are BC (BCE). That means that whether truth of fiction it was established information by the First Century.
A back story? Well, that's good. Create a false story to label some manuscripts as a 'Septuagint' that were supposedly written before Christ. Just because you call something an LXX, doens't mean it existed. It doesn't exist just because you say it.

The letter of Aristas has been proven to be a fraud. It doesn't matter who wrote it. Do your homework.

Stranger
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Stranger said:
A back story? Well, that's good. Create a false story to label some manuscripts as a 'Septuagint' that were supposedly written before Christ. Just because you call something an LXX, doens't mean it existed. It doesn't exist just because you say it.

The letter of Aristas has been proven to be a fraud. It doesn't matter who wrote it. Do your homework.

Stranger
It has not been proven to be fraud as it is whether it is or not is still a controversy among experts. The same type if men claim that many of the books of the bible are frauds; which reveal their claims may not be creditable. For instance they question the authorship and timing of the gospel of John even though John writes much like Philo of Alexander; whose writings are known to be during the earlier half of the first century. John writes much the same in his 1st and 2nd letter. The third is too brief for me to tell and the book of Revelations is a completely different work though John often employs symbolism in his other works as well.

Wikipedia entry on Gospel of John.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
So, tell me...What is the 'one truth'. I'm dying to hear it.
Jesus is the truth, and when you finally give up trying to figure out God for yourself and go to Him as He repeatedly speaks of in the bible, you will find the truth, or you can be like so many reading the bible and studying hard only to discover in the end, that it did nothing to save them. Why wont Chritans go to Him, if He is dead than christianity is a lie and no better than any other religion, but Jesus is the living Word. just waiting for people to listen to Him, you will not find the truth anywhere else.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Stranger said:
junobet

I have no problem saying Papyrus 52 is part of the Gospel of John. And, I have no problem saying Papyrus 458 is part of Deuteronomy. I have a problem in saying Papyrus 458 comes from the Septuagint. Just because it is written in Greek, doesn't prove any existence of a so called 'Septuagint'. And this is the only piece of Greek Old Testament found dating before the time of Christ.

So, if this is the only piece found before the time of Christ, from where do all these supposed quotes of Christ and the apostles come from when it is claimed they quote from the Septuagint?

Where is this so called Septuagint?

The Gospel writers don't tell us Christ quoted from the Septuagint. You are simply assuming a quote by Christ from the Old Testament comes from the Septuagint. Why does it have to be from a Septuagint? Why wouldn't it be just a quote from the Old Testament?

I appreciate your explanations. And I do use the KJV, but I don't believe 'blindly so'.

Stranger
So let me try to explain to you again, even though you might get a better explanation from actual OT-scholars such as the guys from the IOSCS (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/):



The Septuagint is just a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was mostly made between 250 BC and 100 BC. So Papyrus Rylands 458 does indeed give you (some) text of Deuteronomy, but in the Septuagint’s translation.

What makes the Septuagint the Septuagint and different from other Greek translations that were around is the text-family that the Septuagint translations are apparently based on:

Back in the days when the OT got translated into Greek there was not just one version of Deuteronomy etc. around, but many – probably a bad example, but a bit like there’s an Alexandrian text-type for the Greek NT and a Byzantine text-type.
Back in the renaissance it was thought that the Septuagint was just a rather shoddy translation of the original Hebrew text, which was thought to be best preserved in the Masoretic Text. These days – with new findings from Qumran etc. – OT-scholars assume that the Septuagint may well be based on texts that are even older than the Proto-Masoretic text that we no longer have.


There is no one original Septuagint that somehow survived in the desert sand, but we have many textual witnesses to it, from which the texts of the Septuagint can be reconstructed, just like the original texts of the New Testament can reconstructed by comparing their many textual witnesses. And no, not that it matters, but whilst being the oldest we have the Papyrus Rylands 458 is not the only one of the Septuagint that dates before the NT:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Printed_editions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

Of course there must have been many more copies of the Septuaginta around in NT times, but you see: that’s quite a while ago. A long time in which libraries got sacked and burned and in which Papyri just rots if not kept under perfect conditions. The same holds true for the entire Bible: most early manuscripts for both the Old and the New Testament are lost. So if you don’t deem sources like the Codex Sinaiticus (that already contains copies of copies of copies …) trustworthy, you might as well chuck your KJV out of the window, because it is based on even later manuscripts than the Codex Sinaiticus.


Now: The NT is written in Greek. Its authors don’t need to tell us that they (not Jesus, who spoke Aramaic and who did not write the NT) quote from the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament. All we need to do is to compare their quotations of the Old Testament with the Septuagint’s textual witnesses and we’ll find that they use the same wording. Slight variations here and there can be explained by the New Testament authors quoting the Septuagint texts from memory.

Again: I don’t quite see why you find it problematic that the NT authors quoted the OT in Septuagint translation. Is it possible that you just had a knee-jerk reaction to something kerwin said and now find it difficult to admit that you were wrong? Don’t worry! It’s ok to get things wrong here and there, happens to all of us occasionally.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Jesus is the truth, and when you finally give up trying to figure out God for yourself and go to Him as He repeatedly speaks of in the bible, you will find the truth, or you can be like so many reading the bible and studying hard only to discover in the end, that it did nothing to save them. Why wont Chritans go to Him, if He is dead than christianity is a lie and no better than any other religion, but Jesus is the living Word. just waiting for people to listen to Him, you will not find the truth anywhere else.
Yes, you keep saying that. I already know that. But why do you reference the Bible for me to go to when you don't believe it? You told me before you don't believe it is inspired by God. Yet you tell me to obey what God said in the Bible. So what is it? At this point you are just a contradiction.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kerwin said:
It has not been proven to be fraud as it is whether it is or not is still a controversy among experts. The same type if men claim that many of the books of the bible are frauds; which reveal their claims may not be creditable. For instance they question the authorship and timing of the gospel of John even though John writes much like Philo of Alexander; whose writings are known to be during the earlier half of the first century. John writes much the same in his 1st and 2nd letter. The third is too brief for me to tell and the book of Revelations is a completely different work though John often employs symbolism in his other works as well.

Wikipedia entry on Gospel of John.
The letter of Aristeas has been proved to be a fraud. And what it is supposed to prove, the Septuagint, does not exist. At least with the books of the Bible, they exist. As I have said, where is the Septuagint? Where are these quotes being quoted from?

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet said:
So let me try to explain to you again, even though you might get a better explanation from actual OT-scholars such as the guys from the IOSCS (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/):



The Septuagint is just a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was mostly made between 250 BC and 100 BC. So Papyrus Rylands 458 does indeed give you (some) text of Deuteronomy, but in the Septuagint’s translation.

What makes the Septuagint the Septuagint and different from other Greek translations that were around is the text-family that the Septuagint translations are apparently based on:

Back in the days when the OT got translated into Greek there was not just one version of Deuteronomy etc. around, but many – probably a bad example, but a bit like there’s an Alexandrian text-type for the Greek NT and a Byzantine text-type.
Back in the renaissance it was thought that the Septuagint was just a rather shoddy translation of the original Hebrew text, which was thought to be best preserved in the Masoretic Text. These days – with new findings from Qumran etc. – OT-scholars assume that the Septuagint may well be based on texts that are even older than the Proto-Masoretic text that we no longer have.


There is no one original Septuagint that somehow survived in the desert sand, but we have many textual witnesses to it, from which the texts of the Septuagint can be reconstructed, just like the original texts of the New Testament can reconstructed by comparing their many textual witnesses. And no, not that it matters, but whilst being the oldest we have the Papyrus Rylands 458 is not the only one of the Septuagint that dates before the NT:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Printed_editions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

Of course there must have been many more copies of the Septuaginta around in NT times, but you see: that’s quite a while ago. A long time in which libraries got sacked and burned and in which Papyri just rots if not kept under perfect conditions. The same holds true for the entire Bible: most early manuscripts for both the Old and the New Testament are lost. So if you don’t deem sources like the Codex Sinaiticus (that already contains copies of copies of copies …) trustworthy, you might as well chuck your KJV out of the window, because it is based on even later manuscripts than the Codex Sinaiticus.


Now: The NT is written in Greek. Its authors don’t need to tell us that they (not Jesus, who spoke Aramaic and who did not write the NT) quote from the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament. All we need to do is to compare their quotations of the Old Testament with the Septuagint’s textual witnesses and we’ll find that they use the same wording. Slight variations here and there can be explained by the New Testament authors quoting the Septuagint texts from memory.

Again: I don’t quite see why you find it problematic that the NT authors quoted the OT in Septuagint translation. Is it possible that you just had a knee-jerk reaction to something kerwin said and now find it difficult to admit that you were wrong? Don’t worry! It’s ok to get things wrong here and there, happens to all of us occasionally.
Where is this Septuagint you keep saying was translated?

Where are these textual witnesses you speak of which support the Septuagaint? You assume Papyrus 458 is from the Septuagint. It is Greek, that is all.

In one of the links you gave I see that these supposed texts of the Septuagint date only back to 4th century B.C. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the only place where the supposed Septuagint are found. Correct?

Well, the KJV translators wrongly believed the false story of the Septuagint also. But they translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, not the Greek. So, no need for me to get rid of it. Older is better if older is correct. But if older is false, then it is to be rejected.

Yes, the New Testament is written in Greek. And yes, they did not say anything about a Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament.

When you say you are comparing the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament to the Septuagint, what Septuagint? Are you saying the Alexandrian manuscripts?

And appreciate those sentiments, as I certainly make my share of mistakes.

Stranger
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Stranger said:
Where is this Septuagint you keep saying was translated?
The Septuagint is not translated, the Septuagint is a translation. Where are the texts that it translated? In the same place that the Proto-Masoretic texts are: lost in history, either burned or rotten, or (if we are lucky) still slumbering in some hidden clay pots we haven’t found yet.

Where are these textual witnesses you speak of which support the Septuagaint? You assume Papyrus 458 is from the Septuagint. It is Greek, that is all.
First of all: just like your English differs quite a lot from the English that was spoken in Shakespeare’s time and place, there’s Greek and there is Greek and even within the Septuagint you find different styles of Greek. What makes the translation found on Papyrus 458 et al. part of the Septuagint is that it is apparently not based on the Masoretic/Proto-Masoretic texts, but on the texts that the Septuagint is based on. It’s not that we must assume that these original texts differ from each other wildly, but they differ. If I translated the original Luther Bible into English, I’d get a different result than if I translated the modern Schlachter Bible into English. And if you spoke both English and German you could probably tell by my translation which of these two German Bibles I used. See what I mean?

In one of the links you gave I see that these supposed texts of the Septuagint date only back to 4th century B.C. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the only place where the supposed Septuagint are found. Correct?
Obviously you did not give much scrutiny to the link I posted and overlooked the Papyrus Fouad 266, Se2grXII, 8HevXII a, 8HevXII b … and yes, as far as I’m aware of Septuagint translations would be of the Alexandrian text-type. Just speaking for NT-studies (in which I’m not great, but slightly better versed than in OT studies), the Alexandrian text-type is mostly thought to be the most reliable. .

Well, the KJV translators wrongly believed the false story of the Septuagint also. But they translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, not the Greek. So, no need for me to get rid of it. Older is better if older is correct. But if older is false, then it is to be rejected.
The problem aside how we can establish which is correct and which is false: thing is that the KJV translators did not base their translation on older manuscripts, but on the Masoretic version of the Hebrew text. The oldest full version of the Masoretic text that we still have is in the Codex Leningradensis from 1008 AD. Doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text around before then, does it?
I’m not saying you should chuck the KJV (even though there are better translations around), nor am I saying that the Masoretic text is bad (it’s the best source for the Hebrew Text of the OT that we have). I’m saying that if you applied your reasoning concerning the reliability of manuscripts to the KJV (or any other Bible) you ought to chuck it. So you may want to rethink your reasoning.


Yes, the New Testament is written in Greek. And yes, they did not say anything about a Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament.
Because the name “Septuagint” to describe this translation wasn’t in use then. The translation already was. But even if the name had already been in use when the NT was written: when you quote the Bible, do you always specify which translation you are using? I certainly don’t, and so I don’t find it surprising or irritating that Paul and Co. did not either.


When you say you are comparing the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament to the Septuagint, what Septuagint? Are you saying the Alexandrian manuscripts?
[SIZE=medium]Broadly speaking, yes. But of course it’s more complicated than that, because you will find that even Alexandrian text-type manuscripts differ from each other in detail and come in various revisions. That’s were scholars like Rahlfs and his successors come in to trace things back: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]But even if you neither speak Greek or Hebrew you can check for yourself: just take the KJV, whose OT-Part is based on the Masoretic Text, and compare its OT-quotations in the NT first with the corresponding OT verses in the KJV and then with the Septuagint. For example: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1Cor. 1:19 in the KJV: [/SIZE][SIZE=small][/SIZE][SIZE=medium]For it is written, [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]I will destroy the wisdom of the wis[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]e, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah 29:14 in the KJV: “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid[/SIZE][SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]29:14[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]in Brenton’s Septuagint: “Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]I will destroy the wisdom of the wise[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], and will hide the understanding of the prudent.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Or in Greek, where the exact same wording goes even further:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah 29:14 in the Septuaginta ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-bibeln/septuaginta-lxx/lesen-im-bibeltext/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/23/290001/299999/ch/561837b64197842087c68f5750357f6a/[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]):[/SIZE]
"[SIZE=medium]διὰ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦτο[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἰδοὺ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἐγὼ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]προσθήσω[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]μεταθεῖναι[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὸν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]λαὸν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦτον[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]μεταθήσω[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]αὐτοὺς[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀπολῶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφίαν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σύνεσιν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]συνετῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]κρύψω"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1Cor 1:19 (https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-bibeln/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/lesen-im-bibeltext/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/56/10001/19999/ch/4a4342a00b13040a1f30dc628caf3234/): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"γέγραπται[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]γάρ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀπολῶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφίαν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σύνεσιν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]συνετῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀθετήσω[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]​And if you want to see these very verses in the Codex Sinaiticus, which contains (some of) the Septuagint: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=14&chapter=29&lid=en&side=r&verse=14&zoomSlider=0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=38&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0[/SIZE]
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Yes, you keep saying that. I already know that. But why do you reference the Bible for me to go to when you don't believe it? You told me before you don't believe it is inspired by God. Yet you tell me to obey what God said in the Bible. So what is it? At this point you are just a contradiction.
Why do I reference the bible, well simply because it does have the truth in it, but that does not make it the "inerrant" word of God, which is impossible if they are all different. There is only one truth not multiple variations of it, besides christians wont listen to anything else, The problem is you and so many have elevated this book to "God like", status and it is not God, it is not Equal to God nor Jesus , and it does not replace them, it is no more than a refernce book that does as Jesus says,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

and just as he says

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

That eas written to teh Jews but still stands today even for christians. Run to church, read book afte rbookk, watch videos, liten to tapes

2Ti_3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As i said, Jesus is teh truth as you know, so why wont you go to Him, where is your faith, the bible has saved no man and never will neither will or your learning.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet said:
The Septuagint is not translated, the Septuagint is a translation. Where are the texts that it translated? In the same place that the Proto-Masoretic texts are: lost in history, either burned or rotten, or (if we are lucky) still slumbering in some hidden clay pots we haven’t found yet.


First of all: just like your English differs quite a lot from the English that was spoken in Shakespeare’s time and place, there’s Greek and there is Greek and even within the Septuagint you find different styles of Greek. What makes the translation found on Papyrus 458 et al. part of the Septuagint is that it is apparently not based on the Masoretic/Proto-Masoretic texts, but on the texts that the Septuagint is based on. It’s not that we must assume that these original texts differ from each other wildly, but they differ. If I translated the original Luther Bible into English, I’d get a different result than if I translated the modern Schlachter Bible into English. And if you spoke both English and German you could probably tell by my translation which of these two German Bibles I used. See what I mean?


Obviously you did not give much scrutiny to the link I posted and overlooked the Papyrus Fouad 266, Se2grXII, 8HevXII a, 8HevXII b … and yes, as far as I’m aware of Septuagint translations would be of the Alexandrian text-type. Just speaking for NT-studies (in which I’m not great, but slightly better versed than in OT studies), the Alexandrian text-type is mostly thought to be the most reliable. .


The problem aside how we can establish which is correct and which is false: thing is that the KJV translators did not base their translation on older manuscripts, but on the Masoretic version of the Hebrew text. The oldest full version of the Masoretic text that we still have is in the Codex Leningradensis from 1008 AD. Doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text around before then, does it?
I’m not saying you should chuck the KJV (even though there are better translations around), nor am I saying that the Masoretic text is bad (it’s the best source for the Hebrew Text of the OT that we have). I’m saying that if you applied your reasoning concerning the reliability of manuscripts to the KJV (or any other Bible) you ought to chuck it. So you may want to rethink your reasoning.



Because the name “Septuagint” to describe this translation wasn’t in use then. The translation already was. But even if the name had already been in use when the NT was written: when you quote the Bible, do you always specify which translation you are using? I certainly don’t, and so I don’t find it surprising or irritating that Paul and Co. did not either.



[SIZE=medium]Broadly speaking, yes. But of course it’s more complicated than that, because you will find that even Alexandrian text-type manuscripts differ from each other in detail and come in various revisions. That’s were scholars like Rahlfs and his successors come in to trace things back: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]But even if you neither speak Greek or Hebrew you can check for yourself: just take the KJV, whose OT-Part is based on the Masoretic Text, and compare its OT-quotations in the NT first with the corresponding OT verses in the KJV and then with the Septuagint. For example: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1Cor. 1:19 in the KJV: [/SIZE][SIZE=small][/SIZE][SIZE=medium]For it is written, [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]I will destroy the wisdom of the wis[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]e, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah 29:14 in the KJV: “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid[/SIZE][SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]29:14[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]in Brenton’s Septuagint: “Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]I will destroy the wisdom of the wise[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], and will hide the understanding of the prudent.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Or in Greek, where the exact same wording goes even further:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Isaiah 29:14 in the Septuaginta ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-bibeln/septuaginta-lxx/lesen-im-bibeltext/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/23/290001/299999/ch/561837b64197842087c68f5750357f6a/[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]):[/SIZE]
"[SIZE=medium]διὰ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦτο[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἰδοὺ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἐγὼ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]προσθήσω[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]μεταθεῖναι[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὸν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]λαὸν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τοῦτον[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]μεταθήσω[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]αὐτοὺς[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀπολῶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφίαν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σύνεσιν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]συνετῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]κρύψω"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1Cor 1:19 (https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-bibeln/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/lesen-im-bibeltext/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/56/10001/19999/ch/4a4342a00b13040a1f30dc628caf3234/): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"γέγραπται[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]γάρ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀπολῶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφίαν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σοφῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]καὶ[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τὴν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]σύνεσιν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]τῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]συνετῶν[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]ἀθετήσω[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]​And if you want to see these very verses in the Codex Sinaiticus, which contains (some of) the Septuagint: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=14&chapter=29&lid=en&side=r&verse=14&zoomSlider=0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=38&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0[/SIZE]
Yes the Septuagint is a translation. My question was where is it? As you answer....nowhere. There is no Septuagint. Just because you find some brief sketches in Greek does not mean there was a 'Septuagint' written. It is based on a false story.

You assume a different Hebrew Text that the Septuagint is based on other than the Masoretic Text. A text which you don't know where is. In other words, you assume another Hebrew text. No kidding, they differ. One exists. One doesn't. Just like the Septuagint. It exists only because some say it does.

There is nothing in the Papyrus Fouad 266 that indicates it is part of the Septuagint. It is assumed by you and others that it is. There is no Septuagint. No one is denying that some may have translated the Scriptures from Hebrew to the Greek. But there is no Septuagint. That is based on a lie.

Again, older is not always better. Older can be false also. Don't you agree? And, why would I want to get rid of the KJV. It is based on the Majority Texts. Your modern versions are based on the Minority Texts. The Majority Texts comes form over 5000 manuscripts. The Minority Texts comes from 45 manuscripts. And it is only in these Minority manuscripts or Alexandrian Manuscripts that the so called 'Septuagint' is found. Perhaps you should rethink your acceptance of these 'modern versions'.

When the Jews spoke of the Scriptures, they didn't mean a Greek translation. Why did Jesus say, 'every jot and title'? (Matt.5:18) How many jots and titles are in the Greek.

Indeed. What you and others are calling the Septuagint simply comes from the 4th and 5th century Alexandrian Manuscripts.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Why do I reference the bible, well simply because it does have the truth in it, but that does not make it the "inerrant" word of God, which is impossible if they are all different. There is only one truth not multiple variations of it, besides christians wont listen to anything else, The problem is you and so many have elevated this book to "God like", status and it is not God, it is not Equal to God nor Jesus , and it does not replace them, it is no more than a refernce book that does as Jesus says,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

and just as he says

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

That eas written to teh Jews but still stands today even for christians. Run to church, read book afte rbookk, watch videos, liten to tapes

2Ti_3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As i said, Jesus is teh truth as you know, so why wont you go to Him, where is your faith, the bible has saved no man and never will neither will or your learning.
So, the truth that is in the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God? And how do you decide what in the Bible is true or not. Revelation? Vision? A feeling?

Stranger
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Stranger said:
I believe the Alexandrian manuscripts do contain the Old Testament in Greek. But, they are still 4th and 5th century. Do you agree?
Stranger
As far as I know they only reflect the New Testament and are not widely accepted.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Stranger said:
A back story? Well, that's good. Create a false story to label some manuscripts as a 'Septuagint' that were supposedly written before Christ. Just because you call something an LXX, doens't mean it existed. It doesn't exist just because you say it.

The letter of Aristas has been proven to be a fraud. It doesn't matter who wrote it. Do your homework.

Stranger
Even the fraud, if such was the case, was before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

It is a known fact that Koine Greek manuscripts did exist before the birth of Christ.

I did do my homework and found that one expert claimed most experts agreed with him that it was a fraud. I also found that experts in the particular field of research lack credibility which I demonstrated by pointing to the lack of reasoning beyond their claim the gospel of John was not written by John in the early half of the first century but by another individual near the beginning of the second century.

You also might want to look up what Aristobulus has said about it since he is actually the earliest one who mentions a translation done under Ptolemy Philadelphus. Some experts debate whether that version is the same as the LXX we have today as he cited some passages in his writings. As there was no standardizing at that time, so it probably is not as I have heard each printer had a different version of the AV of the KJV before it was standardized. I know the Koine Greek manuscripts different from what is current regarded as the LXX just as the Hebrew manuscripts from the same era differ from the modern ones.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
First of all, may I remind you of John 1 again: nothing was existent before Christ, not even the Bible or any of its versions and translations, including the Masoretic text or the Septuagint.
John 1 says no such thing, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? Moses wrote the Torah during his lifetime. The Septuagint was written in the mid 3rd Century BC and is the oldest extant scriptures we have, albeit in Greek.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Revelation?
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

What do you think teh Holy Spirit is for?? But man is to arrogant and proud to ask, rather try and prove to God how smart they are. What did Saul say after having His enconuter with Jesus??

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

If you want to know the bible read the bible, if you want to know Jesus than go to Jesus, your choice, We are all given teh same spirit, as to wether you listen to him or not is up to you. How else do you think you are ever going to know the truth. No one but God Himself can reveal that to you.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kerwin said:
Even the fraud, if such was the case, was before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

It is a known fact that Koine Greek manuscripts did exist before the birth of Christ.

I did do my homework and found that one expert claimed most experts agreed with him that it was a fraud. I also found that experts in the particular field of research lack credibility which I demonstrated by pointing to the lack of reasoning beyond their claim the gospel of John was not written by John in the early half of the first century but by another individual near the beginning of the second century.

You also might want to look up what Aristobulus has said about it since he is actually the earliest one who mentions a translation done under Ptolemy Philadelphus. Some experts debate whether that version is the same as the LXX we have today as he cited some passages in his writings. As there was no standardizing at that time, so it probably is not as I have heard each printer had a different version of the AV of the KJV before it was standardized. I know the Koine Greek manuscripts different from what is current regarded as the LXX just as the Hebrew manuscripts from the same era differ from the modern ones.
I understand that the only writings we have of Aristobulus come from Eusebius quotes from Clement. And Eusebius lived in 3rd century A.D.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

What do you think teh Holy Spirit is for?? But man is to arrogant and proud to ask, rather try and prove to God how smart they are. What did Saul say after having His enconuter with Jesus??

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

If you want to know the bible read the bible, if you want to know Jesus than go to Jesus, your choice, We are all given teh same spirit, as to wether you listen to him or not is up to you. How else do you think you are ever going to know the truth. No one but God Himself can reveal that to you.
You didn't answer my question?

Stranger
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Stranger said:
I understand that the only writings we have of Aristobulus come from Eusebius quotes from Clement. And Eusebius lived in 3rd century A.D.

Stranger
I am not sure of the situation but Aristobulus could have started a rumor instead of stated facts since he was a citizen of Alexandria, where the LXX was supposed to be written and whether fact or fiction it served a propaganda promoting the city of Alexandria's respect for the Jewish people; whom those kings ruled. Of course the king may have done it for that purpose as well.
 

7angels

Active Member
Aug 13, 2011
624
88
28
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
i find it sad that so few of you seem to grasp the meaning of who and what the bible is. do you know why there are so many denominations? it could be that all the different points of view represent a different denomination. most of the extreme points of view are thrown out by most christians but small variables in scripture are the reasons for most new denominations that come along. some denominations only allow the kjv and no other, then you have those that believe healing is for today, then you have those that put love first and foremost, then there is hyper grace beliefs, and ect.

if i understand what is being said correctly then i believe stranger is the closest to the truth. stranger just has one problem that i can see and that is that stranger is having a hard time getting his point across.

first, do we or do we not believe the Word of God is all true or not. for the Word of God according to scripture is God breathed. so those that don't believe it is all true then what part to we rip out? how do you judge whether something is true or not? either the bible is God breathed or it is not. if it is not then why do we even read it. there are many man written books that i believe are more interesting to read.

second, why are there so many different versions of the bible? if there are so many how do we choose the correct one? why don't we all learn hebrew and greek and learn what the original versions say so we can understand it ourselves? why don't we just read several different versions to help us get the gist of what is being said. wouldn't that help us stay out of getting stuck in any discrepancies that any one version has. to my knowledge no version is completely without errors, and includes the kjv.

third, what do we do about so called discrepancies in the bible? for example women preachers/teachers, end times, drinking, and ect. if the Word of God is truly God breathed then there should not be any discrepancies correct or does God not remember what He said previously? if it is because humans wrote the bible then why does God not understand and bless us even though we misinterpret His words?

forth, i would like to challenge all you here. many of you claim you know the truth. well that is great to hear. then you should be able to tell me what the Holy Spirit is doing in your life. the Word teaches that there is fruit that come from your deeds. also signs, miracle, and wonders will follow those that believe. so tell me the fruit you have in your life and also the supernatural that should be following you.

God bless
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You didn't answer my question?
I dont think I ever could, NO the Bible is NOT the word of God, all the evidence says so, just because it has SOME of what God and Jesus says does not make teh whole book the word of God that is just profound stupidity. It also has some of teh words form the devil . should we than call it the devis word, it certainly has confuesd a good many christians?? just look at all teh religions and all teh versions of the bible, are you so foolish to think that God would let His word be corrupted as it Has. All men are given teh Holy Sorirt when they beleiev, but if you never ask you will just get mad at those who have. Your choice, getting angry wont get you teh truth.