The Dueterocanonicals: Myths vs Facts

  • 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!

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
That's because you refuse to admit how we got the Bible in the first place, and flatly deny 4 centuries of Christian history, all because you deny the authority of the Church. No amount of factual evidence can change blind prejudice.
Blind prejuduce, you should take a really hard look at who it is your church is persectuing. Blind yes use teh "bible" to justify ones religion, thats Hypocrisy. You glorfy your chuch, christians are supoosed to glorfy Jesus and God "alone". Your religion has replaced God and Jesus with its own doctrines and tell teh world its a good thing. Agggggggghhhhhh
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
THERE ARE NO APOCRYPHA BOOKS IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, BUT SOME PROTESTANTS INSIST ON ERRONEOUSLY USING THE TERM INTERCHANGEABLY AS AN EXCUSE TO REJECT THE LEGITIMATE INSPIRED DEUTEROCANON THAT JESUS AND THE APOSTLES USED.. THAT'S WHAT HAS YOU CONFUSED.
DEAL WITH POST #4

That's because you refuse to admit how we got the Bible in the first place, and flatly deny 4 centuries of Christian history, all because you deny the authority of the Church. No amount of factual evidence can change blind prejudice.
Sure there are apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible. They are: Baruch, Bel and the dragon, and Susannas virture(deceptively integrated into the book of Daniel..Dan.3:24-90, and ch.13 and 14), apocryphal additions to Esther found in Chaper A:1-17, chapter B:1-7, Chapter C through chapter D, Chapter E:1-24, Then there is Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach Tobit, and Wisdom.

So, as you can see, the Catholic Bible is riddled with Apocryphal writings. Call them whatever you like. They are the Apocrypha.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Born_Again

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
kepha31

No, what is an invention is the Roman Catholic term 'deuterocanonical'. A made up term to identify certain apocryphal books they accept as opposed to the ones they don't. Now, as I have said, you want to label some books all accept as inspired by God, as deuterocanonical, so as to give credence to Roman Catholics definition of 'deuterocanonical' . And somehow you think people are stupid enough to believe it.

The Roman Church has included the Apocrypha in its Bible. These books the Jews of Palestine and Protestants reject.

I'm not touting any New Testament Apocrypha. Where do you see that?

What do you mean I have no case? My Bible rejects your apocryphal books. Thats all I need. Nothing you can say can change it.

Stranger
Ummmm, looks like somebody needs a history lesson . . .

The Deuterocanonical Books were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and during the life of Christ.
It wasn't until AFTER his Ascension and AFTER the destruction of the temple that the Seven Books, along with portions of Esther and Daniel.were removed from the Canon which was then closed. These books were having an effect on the spread of Christianity among the Hellenized Jews.

When the Canon was declared by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the 4th century, those Books remained. They were studied by, quoted and referred to by Jesus and the NT writers over 150 times. It wasn't until the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century that these Books came under fire from rebellious, spiritually-prideful men who didn't much care for them and their Catholic influence. No big surprise, seeing that they contain a lot of Catholic doctrine.

As kepha31 has already stated - the Protestant Fathers tried to remove several NT Books as well such as James, Hebrews, Revelation and a few others. Had it not been for their contemporaries - YOUR Bible would be a LOT smaller . . .

So, you see - Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST Temple anti-Christian OT Canon - not the one Jesus and the NT writers studied from.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Ummmm, looks like somebody needs a history lesson . . .

The Deuterocanonical Books were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and during the life of Christ.
It wasn't until AFTER his Ascension and AFTER the destruction of the temple that the Seven Books, along with portions of Esther and Daniel.were removed from the Canon which was then closed. These books were having an effect on the spread of Christianity among the Hellenized Jews.

When the Canon was declared by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the 4th century, those Books remained. They were studied by, quoted and referred to by Jesus and the NT writers over 150 times. It wasn't until the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century that these Books came under fire from rebellious, spiritually-prideful men who didn't much care for them and their Catholic influence. No big surprise, seeing that they contain a lot of Catholic doctrine.

As kepha31 has already stated - the Protestant Fathers tried to remove several NT Books as well such as James, Hebrews, Revelation and a few others. Had it not been for their contemporaries - YOUR Bible would be a LOT smaller . . .

So, you see - Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST Temple anti-Christian OT Canon - not the one Jesus and the NT writers studied from.
The apocryphal books were rejected by the Jews in Palestine before they were rejected by Protestants. These books were always seen as apocryphal.

Jesus nor the other writers of the New Testament ever quoted from the apocryphal books.

Yes, several books were in question. But even though they were, they were acknowledged by the people of God, that they were the Word of God. Which the apocrypha were not.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
The apocryphal books were rejected by the Jews in Palestine before they were rejected by Protestants. These books were always seen as apocryphal.

Jesus nor the other writers of the New Testament ever quoted from the apocryphal books.

Yes, several books were in question. But even though they were, they were acknowledged by the people of God, that they were the Word of God. Which the apocrypha were not.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

Stranger
Rubbish.

Apparently, you don't have any knowledge of 1st century Israel. The Canon of Scripture was an OPEN Canon. The Septuagint, having been translated some 200 years before the birth of Christ was considered Scripture. The canon wasn't closed until long AFTER Jesus ascended and AFTER the Temple was destroyed. That's why I said that you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST Temple anti-Christian OT Canon - not the one Jesus and the NT writers studied from.

As for your claim that neither Jesus nor the NT writers "ever" quoted or alluded to the Deuterocanonical Books - that is simply a fairy tale of your own making.

In Post #4 - kepha31 gave you a laundry list of corroborating verses from the Deuterocanonicals and the NT which you sflatly ignored.
Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it "go away" - is makes you blind by choice . . .
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
is makes you blind by choice . . .
Yes you choose catholism that makes you blind to the truth. for the truth you seek is teh one that makes you religion true, but a lie is a lie excpet for those whom desire it to be the truth.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Christ rejected for the doctrines of men.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
mjrhealth said:
Yes you choose catholism that makes you blind to the truth. for the truth you seek is teh one that makes you religion true, but a lie is a lie excpet for those whom desire it to be the truth.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Christ rejected for the doctrines of men.
Precisely.
And that's what you got at the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century: Doctrines and inventions of men.

The funny thing though, is that they couldn't even agree with each other about which new doctrines to invent - which gave birth the almost 50,000 disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have the "Truth".

What a mess . . .
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Rubbish.

Apparently, you don't have any knowledge of 1st century Israel. The Canon of Scripture was an OPEN Canon. The Septuagint, having been translated some 200 years before the birth of Christ was considered Scripture. The canon wasn't closed until long AFTER Jesus ascended and AFTER the Temple was destroyed. That's why I said that you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST Temple anti-Christian OT Canon - not the one Jesus and the NT writers studied from.
As for your claim that neither Jesus nor the NT writers "ever" quoted or alluded to the Deuterocanonical Books - that is simply a fairy tale of your own making.

In Post #4 - kepha31 gave you a laundry list of corroborating verses from the Deuterocanonicals and the NT which you sflatly ignored.
Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it "go away" - is makes you blind by choice . . .
The Palestinian Jews rejected the apocryphal books. That is why they are not in their Old Testament. See their Tanakh.

There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint.

In post #4 kepha used words such as 'similar', 'follows', 'refers', and 'describes'. He did not use the word 'quote'. Because neither Jesus or the disciples, or writers of the New Testament, ever quoted from the apocrypha.


Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
The Palestinian Jews rejected the apocryphal books. That is why they are not in their Old Testament. See their Tanakh.
The Tanakh was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and the Jews had no closed canon until the 1st century. Your attempting to defend your rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament. That is your authority???


There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint

Protestant scholars and sources disagree with you.
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC.
http://www.septuagint.net/

Following Martin Luther, Protestants regard the deuterocanonical books as apocryphal (non-canonical). According to J. N. D. Kelly, (renowned Protestant scholar) "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church… always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books."
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Harper Collins. pp. 53–54.

Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint
(G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

In post #4 kepha used words such as 'similar', 'follows', 'refers', and 'describes'. He did not use the word 'quote'. Because neither Jesus or the disciples, or writers of the New Testament, ever quoted from the apocrypha.
The comparative relationship between the OT and the NT citations is unmistakable. You are raising the bar, which is dishonest. None oft the NT writers, including Jesus Himself, uses the word "quote" when quoting the OT. My "laundry list" has you stumped and you are too proud to admit it.

Here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’" He didn't use the word "quote" anywhere.

One thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.


APOCRYPHA

Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek apokryphos, hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, "Apocryphon", is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation "uncanonical" with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures — one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church — applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm




We see some individuals used the term, you can find one or two if you look hard enough, but the Apocrypha books, properly understood, were rejected by the Church, as they were never included in the canon. Your blanket term "Apocrypha" to include the Deuterocanonical books is a false man made Protestant tradition.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
The Palestinian Jews rejected the apocryphal books. That is why they are not in their Old Testament. See their Tanakh.

There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint.

In post #4 kepha used words such as 'similar', 'follows', 'refers', and 'describes'. He did not use the word 'quote'. Because neither Jesus or the disciples, or writers of the New Testament, ever quoted from the apocrypha.


Stranger
When all else fails - deny, deny, deny . . .

This is perhaps the most asinine and impotent argument I have ever heard regarding the Septuagint.
Even Jewish scholars don't deny its existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved to the world that they existed back in the 1st century.

Surely, you can come up with a better argument that flat denial.
UNBELIEVABLE . . .


The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

Concerning your post #29:

No kiddin? The Tanakh was written in Hebrew. What a revelation that is. It just so happens the apocryphal books we are talkin about are in the Old Testament. Is that a revelation?

No, Protestants reject the Jews denial of Christ and the New Testament. Not the Old. There is nothing wrong with the Old. Their rejection of the New is wrong.

I don't care if Protestant scholars disagree. There is no Septuagint. If there is one, produce it.

I don't care if the word 'quote' is never used. The fact is that Jesus Christ, nor the disciples, nor the New Testament writers, ever quoted the apocryphal books. Some of which you call 'deuterocanonical'. Again that is why you use words like 'similar', 'follows', 'refers', and 'describes'. There are no quotes from the apocryphal books.

Sorry, see my post #22 for the apocryphal books that were added to the Scriptures. It will enlighten you.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
When all else fails - deny, deny, deny . . .

This is perhaps the most asinine and impotent argument I have ever heard regarding the Septuagint.
Even Jewish scholars don't deny its existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved to the world that they existed back in the 1st century.

Surely, you can come up with a better argument that flat denial.
UNBELIEVABLE . . .


The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
I deny when you can offer nothing to prove the existance of a Septuagint. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

By the way, even your LXX is a lie. Check your made up story. wikipedia? Please.

Stranger
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Stranger said:
The Palestinian Jews rejected the apocryphal books. That is why they are not in their Old Testament. See their Tanakh.

There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint.

In post #4 kepha used words such as 'similar', 'follows', 'refers', and 'describes'. He did not use the word 'quote'. Because neither Jesus or the disciples, or writers of the New Testament, ever quoted from the apocrypha.


Stranger
Do you really believe what you wrote? 'There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint'?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Do you really believe what you wrote? 'There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint'?
Yes

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/The_Bible2.htm

Stranger said:
I deny when you can offer nothing to prove the existance of a Septuagint. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

By the way, even your LXX is a lie. Check your made up story. wikipedia? Please.

Stranger
The first Bible: The Septuagint
The History of the Septuagint, and its Terminology. < not a Catholic site...who cares? ...deny, deny, deny...

Rather closer attention must be given to the special brand ofJudaism which flourished at Alexandria. In earlier days it had
produced the Septuagint version of the Old Testament...
...It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha,or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Begun at Alexandria about the middle of the third century B.C., this became the Bible
of the Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion, and most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.
BY J. N. D. KELLY, d.d., f.b.a.
EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES PRINCIPAL OF ST. EDMUND HALL, OXFORD UNIVERSITY LECTURES IN PATRISTIC STUDIES

J. N. D. KELLY??? A world renowned PROTESTANT patristic scholar? He must be a biased closet Catholic that doesn't know anything, he can't possibly refute your deified opinions!!!

...deny, deny, deny...

Septuagint, The (Greek Translation of Torah) < a Jewish site. What could the Jews know about the OT???

...deny, deny, deny...



Apple.jpg
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Stranger said:
I deny when you can offer nothing to prove the existance of a Septuagint. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

By the way, even your LXX is a lie. Check your made up story. wikipedia? Please.

Stranger
Let's check out which really is the lie - the existence of the LXX or no LXX.

I'm aware of websites that promote conspiracy theories such as, 'Septuagint Fraud: LXX Hoax EXPOSED'.

However, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's well researched article on the 'Septuagint' refutes your view of denial of the existence of the LXX. I support the scholarship of this article rather than your emotional response of the denial of the existence of the LXX: 'There is no proof that the Septuagint was translated 200 years before Christ. There is no proof that there was a Septuagint'.

How do we know the Greek translation of the OT (the LXX) existed? Here's some evidence from early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (lifespan ca. AD 260-340):

It is our present task, therefore, to collect these same expressions from the prophetic writings
of the Hebrews, so that by their agreement in each separate part the demonstration of the truth
may be established. And we must recognize that the sacred oracles include in the Hebrew
much that is obscure both in expression and in meaning, and are capable of various
interpretations in Greek because of their difficulty. The Seventy Hebrews in concert have
translated them together, and I shall pay the greatest attention to them, because it is the
custom of the Christian Church to use their work. But wherever necessary, I shall call in the
help of the editions of the later translators, which the Jews are accustomed to use to day,
so that my proof may have stronger support from all sources. With this introduction, it now
remains for me to treat of the inspired words (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 5,
Preface, 'The Proof of the Gospel').
Therefore, the translation of the OT by the Seventy Hebrews into Greek [known as the Septuagint] was 'the custom of the Christian Church to use their work' in the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his history.

An earlier church father, Irenaeus, who lived in the late second century (died ca AD 202)
refuted your view of the non-existence of the LXX:
For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they—for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians—sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this—He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2).

So there you have it that, to 'adorn the library' of Alexandria, there was 'made request to the people of Jerusalem,
that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language.... sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders,
who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired....
commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came
together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every
other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine'.

Those who were closest to the inauguration of the early church knew of the existence of the LXX, translated
in Alexandria by 70 scholars who knew Hebrew and Greek. and how it came into existence. Now you and some
conspiracy theorists want us to believe it never existed.

I suggest that you do some serious research, instead of feeding us the details of your conspiracy theory about the LXX

Oz

P.S. I've tried to correct font 3 times to make it consistent but it won't work.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The story of the Septuagint is based only on the 'letter of Aristeas'. It has been proved a fraud.

Eusbeius, and Irenaeus among many others believed it. But they are several hundred years later.

Where do you find the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Facts can not trump blind prejudice.

sand.jpg
no Septuagint​ here!
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
I deny when you can offer nothing to prove the existance of a Septuagint. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

By the way, even your LXX is a lie. Check your made up story. wikipedia? Please.

Stranger
And living in denial of the truth is a pathetic debating tool . . .

As I educated you before - the Dead Sea Scrolls proved to the world that they existed back in the 1st century.
Whatever questions or doubts about the existence of the Septuagint were SQUASHED at Qumran with the discovery of the Scrolls. Oh, and the fact that they are quoted or referenced more than 150 times in the NT is pretty solid evidence of their existence as well.


Do me a favor - pull out your Protestant Bible and tell me where Paul got the idea about the "Armor of God."
Eph. 6:13-17 - The ENTIRE whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

The only ones left who deny the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical and the Septuagint are the ignorant and the anti-Catholic.
Which group do YOU fall into, hmmmm??



YOU need to stop reading all those moronic Jack Chick tracts . . .