The Septuagint
- Thread starter Stefcui
- Start date
-
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!
Hi ProphecyStudent,
I think you are reading too much into the verse… the differences you speak of are superficial, they do not really exist. Isaac Newton is also reading too much into it. The understanding you speak of is not determined (in this case) by the manuscripts. It is your own personal interpretation (which you are entitled to have).
Let me go through the verses carefully. Firstly, there is remarkable agreement in Daniel 9 between the Septuagint and Masoretic. The few small differences are mostly found between verses 25-27. I will show these verses in the AKJV and Brenton’s Septuagint:
AKJV 9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
LXX 9:25: “And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.”
The main distinction here is highlighted in BOLD. LXX adds “the time shall return”
AKJV 9:26: “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined.”
LXX 9:26: “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.”
The main distinction here is “He (Jesus) shall destroy the city… with the prince that is coming” Although the Antichrist is the aggressor, Jesus is the catalyst.
AKJV 9:27: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate.”
LXX 9:27: “And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.”
The main distinction here is “The temple” is the target of abominations; and it will occur at “the end of time.”
If I understand your doctrine correctly, the Septuagint actually confirms your point of view even better than does the Masoretic. I find nothing in these verses that speak of the “two anointed ones”. I do not even understand what you are implying. The 7 + 62 weeks are mentioned in both manuscripts.
The terms, doing “violence to scripture” is a manipulative and deceitful term Newton uses to “scoff” at anyone who would dare to disagree with him. These manipulative terms do not belong among the fruits of the spirit. Perhaps these wrong types of people have been rubbing off onto you? I am impressed that you willingly rephrased your comments and question to be more in harmony with Christian love and charity. Thank you.
God Bless
Steve
I think you are reading too much into the verse… the differences you speak of are superficial, they do not really exist. Isaac Newton is also reading too much into it. The understanding you speak of is not determined (in this case) by the manuscripts. It is your own personal interpretation (which you are entitled to have).
Let me go through the verses carefully. Firstly, there is remarkable agreement in Daniel 9 between the Septuagint and Masoretic. The few small differences are mostly found between verses 25-27. I will show these verses in the AKJV and Brenton’s Septuagint:
AKJV 9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
LXX 9:25: “And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.”
The main distinction here is highlighted in BOLD. LXX adds “the time shall return”
AKJV 9:26: “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined.”
LXX 9:26: “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.”
The main distinction here is “He (Jesus) shall destroy the city… with the prince that is coming” Although the Antichrist is the aggressor, Jesus is the catalyst.
AKJV 9:27: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate.”
LXX 9:27: “And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.”
The main distinction here is “The temple” is the target of abominations; and it will occur at “the end of time.”
If I understand your doctrine correctly, the Septuagint actually confirms your point of view even better than does the Masoretic. I find nothing in these verses that speak of the “two anointed ones”. I do not even understand what you are implying. The 7 + 62 weeks are mentioned in both manuscripts.
The terms, doing “violence to scripture” is a manipulative and deceitful term Newton uses to “scoff” at anyone who would dare to disagree with him. These manipulative terms do not belong among the fruits of the spirit. Perhaps these wrong types of people have been rubbing off onto you? I am impressed that you willingly rephrased your comments and question to be more in harmony with Christian love and charity. Thank you.
God Bless
Steve
There is a lot of propaganda and negative talk about the Septuagint that is completely unfounded. It spreads like a bush fire, and develops further and further away from truth.
Julius Africanus, the famed 2[sup]nd[/sup] century historian and chronologist, wrote to Origen about the very subject of the book of Daniel. The main difference is that the Septuagint contains 3 additional chapters... (Bel and the Dragon, and the History of Suzanna). Those letters are worth looking up. They are a good insight into why Origen was considered a genius. Even Jerome said that Origen was the closest thing to the Apostle Paul in the 2[sup]nd[/sup] and 3[sup]rd[/sup] centuries. Later, certain enemies had taken Origen’s writings and republished them with errors in them. Origen was considered a heretic by later Christians who did not understand that he was plagiarised and attacked. Rufinus came to Origen’s defence and explained that his enemies had altered his writings.
God Bless
Steve
Now that I think about it I do remember comparing the 70 weeks prophecy in both the MT and LXX some time ago and found them to be very close.
Now that I think about it, did you get the PDF of Thomas Brett I sent you?
I would like to know what else you are researching; you have an astute mind. Have you studied Revelation, Daniel or the other prophets with any detail? I love prophecy...
Regards
Steve
Yes, and I apologize for not letting you know. I tried to respond via email, but for some reason my email provider has started requiring that I type in the characters shown in an image. Unfortunately, the image was not visible. I was going to notify you via PM here, but you beat me to it.
Revelation in great detail. I'm not quite sure how to talk about the things I've learned.
I want to share a photo I stumbled upon less than a week ago that clearly shows something I have known through the analysis of aerial photos and geologic/topographic maps (and other evidence), but have wanted to actually see with my eyes for quite some time.
The LXX version of Zechariah 14:5 states that a valley will be blocked up and filled in all the way to Azal, just as it was blocked up in King Uzziah's day. Josephus identified that valley as the area of the ancient kings' gardens, which lies at the base of the Mount of Olives at the juncture of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys.
The photo below shows a south-southeast view from the wall of Jerusalem, overlooking the Mount of Olives (on the left) and the area of kings' gardens (in the center). The photo also shows a mass of slumping landslide rubble on the western slope of the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to the area of the kings' gardens. Israeli geologists have identified an old landslide at the top of the mountain above this rubble field (circumscribed by the white dotted line); and archaeologist George Adam Smith discovered in the early part of the 20th century (approx. 50-60 years after this photo was taken) that the area of the kings' gardens was covered with about fifty (50) feet of debris.
If you look closely in the photo you will see that the part of the slope covered with landslide rubble has a terraced look (I recommend that you click on the picture so that you can save it and zoom in for better detail). This phenomenon is what happens when a large volume of loose earth material slowly migrates down a slope over time (mass wasting is the technical term). I have another photo taken from the mountain in the background that shows this same terraced look on the southwestern slope of the Mount of Olives, extending from the king's gardens to the valley of Azal.
This photo is extremely significant because it shows that landslide rubble fell down the westerm slope of the Mount of Olives and blocked up the area of the kings' gardens, just as Josephus said. And the other photo I have shows that landslide rubble fell down the southwestern slope and blocked up the valley extending from the kings' gardens to Azal, just like in the days of Uzziah.
The valley of Azal in the picture is called Nahal Azal by the Israelies, who recognize the fact that this is Azal mentioned in Zechariah 14:5. Click here to view an example of this from the Israel Antiquities Authority.
The LXX version of Zechariah 14:5 states that a valley will be blocked up and filled in all the way to Azal, just as it was blocked up in King Uzziah's day. Josephus identified that valley as the area of the ancient kings' gardens, which lies at the base of the Mount of Olives at the juncture of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys.
The photo below shows a south-southeast view from the wall of Jerusalem, overlooking the Mount of Olives (on the left) and the area of kings' gardens (in the center). The photo also shows a mass of slumping landslide rubble on the western slope of the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to the area of the kings' gardens. Israeli geologists have identified an old landslide at the top of the mountain above this rubble field (circumscribed by the white dotted line); and archaeologist George Adam Smith discovered in the early part of the 20th century (approx. 50-60 years after this photo was taken) that the area of the kings' gardens was covered with about fifty (50) feet of debris.
If you look closely in the photo you will see that the part of the slope covered with landslide rubble has a terraced look (I recommend that you click on the picture so that you can save it and zoom in for better detail). This phenomenon is what happens when a large volume of loose earth material slowly migrates down a slope over time (mass wasting is the technical term). I have another photo taken from the mountain in the background that shows this same terraced look on the southwestern slope of the Mount of Olives, extending from the king's gardens to the valley of Azal.
This photo is extremely significant because it shows that landslide rubble fell down the westerm slope of the Mount of Olives and blocked up the area of the kings' gardens, just as Josephus said. And the other photo I have shows that landslide rubble fell down the southwestern slope and blocked up the valley extending from the kings' gardens to Azal, just like in the days of Uzziah.
The valley of Azal in the picture is called Nahal Azal by the Israelies, who recognize the fact that this is Azal mentioned in Zechariah 14:5. Click here to view an example of this from the Israel Antiquities Authority.
I understand…
If you want to use me as a sounding board, by all means do so. You can do this though email or messages in order to keep it private.
I believe there are many spiritual truths God is going to reveal to His people at around this time. The problem is…, for people who have become entrenched in doctrines from an age long ago, these “visions and dreams” God gives are sometimes going to conflict with traditional teachings; particularly on the understanding of Revelation, Daniel and the prophets. Daniel was told that the book would be sealed “until the time of the end”. That means that teachings that were developed prior to “the time of the end” will very often be wrong…
The ‘church’, though, is an institution… with interests to protect. Any talk of the church being wrong on its defining end-time doctrines cannot be tolerated; and a wall of resistance will be met. Institutions need to protect their interests. People will attack you because they believe they are defending the church, and hence defending God… These are obstacles that God will address in His own way in His own time.
I look forward to the church going through their hour of trial. Those who live for God will stand. Death is not even an obstacle for God. He knows the end from the beginning. He is the Alpha and Omega. This is not a contest; God has already one…, but it is a test.
God Bless
Steve
Zechariah 14:5 - The information seems (to me) to be a set of instructions on fleeing when that time comes… the time when landslides, earthquakes and mass wasting occurs on a large scale (i.e. the tribulation). The effects of the mass wasting will cover an area that reaches the very backdoor of the King (rulers). They may be free from the earthquake, or have earthquake proof buildings; but that will not mean they are safe…if the earthquake misses them, the effects of the earthquake (landslides, tsunamis) are still to follow.
A similar thing happened in Shaanxi, China, in 1556 AD. 830,000 people died in Loess caves because of an earthquake triggering landslides that engulfed all of the residents. We are told in Zechariah about the magnitude of the event, as well as our need to evacuate when the tribulation begins. If you look at it as our need for preparedness to move during this time, for God would call a remnant out to safety, this same message is repeated in multiple scriptures by multiple prophets.
As you mentioned above about 2 Samuel 8:1-2; you will notice that Zechariah 14:4 also talks about “halves”. “Half the mountain shall lean to the north, and half of it to the south.” The scriptures allow for both halves and thirds (as in Rev 16:19 – “The great city was split into three parts and the cities of the nations collapsed”). The context does not dictate in Samuel, so you are left with one manuscript being right and the other wrong. It's not a major concern anyway.
P.S. I am studying Earth Science at the moment, so I am particularly interested in your photos of the landslides, etc.
God Bless
Steve
Hi Steve,
Let me reiterate the salient distinctions:
Masoretic Text
25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.
26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Septuagint Text
25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.
In the Masoretic there are TWO anointed ones (the first after the seven; and the second after the sixty-two), and in the Septuagint there is ONE anointed one (after the seven and sixty-two).
Do you suggest this is inconsequential? Maybe I should average these two texts and arrive at 1.5 anointed ones?
As already provided, and discounted by you, Newton observed that NO society through out the history of mankind has EVER summed two numbers (i.e., "seven and sixty-two") to represent what should be provided as the intended value (i.e., sixty-nine).
So unless you have some precedent for such a convention (i.e., Biblical or societal), then Newton and the Masoretic text is correct on this point.
Hi HeRoseFromTheDead,
This certainly would confirm my observations.
PropphecyStudent
In the Masoretic it has the word "anointed"; in the Septuagint is has the word "Christ". These two terms mean exactly the same thing. You should know this…
You appear to be very confused about what you believe, and you reply with a retort akin to an unbeliever who scoffs. This is what you really should be focusing on. Your knowledge won’t save you when you still have devilish mannerisms. Leave prophecy to those who have advanced more in Christian living. You do a dis-service to the entire church by trying to wear a hat that does not fit. You cannot jump straight from nursery to prophet just because it is a challenge to you. Leave it alone.
You seem to be after support of some wayward doctrine, which I do not want to get entangled in.
All the best
Steve
Hi Steve,
You just made my second point. The fact is, mashiyach (H4899) does not mean "Christ". Of the 39 uses, 37 are clearly NOT "Christ" ( -- and the two cited in Daniel 9 are NOT "Christ" either -- )::
Leviticus 4:3
If the priest [sup]3548[/sup] that is anointed[sup]4899[/sup] do sin [sup]2398[/sup] according to the sin [sup]819[/sup] of the people [sup]5971[/sup]; then let him bring [sup]7126[/sup] for his sin [sup]2403[/sup], which he hath sinned [sup]2398[/sup] , a young [sup]1241[/sup] [sup]1121[/sup] bullock [sup]6499[/sup] without blemish [sup]8549[/sup] unto the LORD [sup]3068[/sup] for a sin offering [sup]2403[/sup].
The CEV footnote correctly sums it up as:
Daniel 9:25 the Chosen Leader: Or " a chosen leader." In Hebrew the word " chosen" means " to pour oil (on someone's head)." In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person's head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.
So once again, the Septuagint is not true to the original text, but is simply a translation to which has been added commentary..
And just to be perfectly clear, this Daniel 9 prophecy has absolutely nothing to do the Jesus' ministry and crucifixtion. The book which Daniel read was NOT the book of Jeremiah; the durations are NOT the concise "week"; there is ONE anointed one after the seven; there is a SECOND anointed one after the sixty-two; the seven and the sixty-two are NOT summed as though the Author intended sixty-nine; the anointed one cut-off was NOT Jesus; and the seventieth week is NOT the tribulation duration.
But toward this reconciliation of Scripture and fulfillment, I would propose that the FIRST hurdle for our discussion remains at the "seven and sixty-two" violence to Scripture (per Newton). As such, I would propose that if you argue the legitimacy of that ~text~ then you provide either a Biblical or Societal precedent. -- Is this reasonable?
Your Friend,
PropphecyStudent
PS Steve, I would never criticize someone for using a Septuagint, or English translation (me included), a paraphrase, or an amplified Bible. If that individual chooses to read a text which is easier to understand then that's WONDERFUL. However, if the premise is made that any of these is more accurate than the Masoretic text, then I would dispute that claim, -- as evidenced. Ha Ha
The Ignore Preferences under My Settings is a wonderful feature. Then there's no temptation to feed the trolls.
Yes it does seem to help, lol. I am really looking forward to this discussion though and hope we can continue it.
If an individual says that mashiyach (H4899) means "Christ", and Scripture says that mashiyach (H4899) means ANY priest or king, (Ref. Leviticus 4:3), then Scripture is a troll.
If the Septuagint says the ~seven and sixty-two~ are one number, then the lack of a Scriptural and Societal precedent is a troll.
So let me repost my previous perspective:
I would never criticize someone for using a Septuagint, or English translation (me included), a paraphrase, or an amplified Bible. If that individual chooses to read a text which is easier to understand then that's WONDERFUL. However, if the premise is made that any of these is more accurate than the Masoretic text, then I would dispute that claim, -- as evidenced.
And that being said, if someone wants to believe something that is not and I've done the responsible thing and explained that failure, then their blood is on their own head!
If the Septuagint says the ~seven and sixty-two~ are one number, then the lack of a Scriptural and Societal precedent is a troll.
So let me repost my previous perspective:
I would never criticize someone for using a Septuagint, or English translation (me included), a paraphrase, or an amplified Bible. If that individual chooses to read a text which is easier to understand then that's WONDERFUL. However, if the premise is made that any of these is more accurate than the Masoretic text, then I would dispute that claim, -- as evidenced.
And that being said, if someone wants to believe something that is not and I've done the responsible thing and explained that failure, then their blood is on their own head!
What is your evidence that the MT rendering of Zechariah 14:5 is more accurate than the LXX?
You have errors in your logic; in your beliefs; in your evidence; and most importantly, in your heart. I would not want to be corrected by someone who is so undeveloped in their spiritual walk. Nor do I even want to correct your errors. It is your heart that is producing your faulty logic; and this must be corrected by obedience to God in other areas.
It is impossible to have “the true knowledge of God” while you are still puffed up with pride, and painting the outside of your tomb. You are straining the gnat while gulping the camel. Go back and read the bible with a servant’s heart, and learn obedience and respect before you start pulling words apart and assuming you have “true knowledge”. This might pass for spiritual in your own church, but it does not wash with me. As I said, leave it alone, please…
Steve
Bless you brother, thank you.
Steve
I did not present evidence for any passage other than Daniel 9:25, and don't intend to. A "law" is no longer a "law" if it fails in a single point, and I would present certainly two points of contention which instead of a Scripturally based discussion, some individuals have resorted to accusations and character assassination. (Please see my Topic: "Is This A "Christian" or Is This A "Religious" Forum?", where I attempt to distinguish the difference between how the religious murdered the prophets, versus how Jesus explained the Scriptures, and consider whether Jesus would have assailed a person presenting Scriptural and Historical evidence as has been performed in this Topic.)
So once again, I've done my part to provide Scriptural and historical evidence. If one or all choose to ignore it, then that's their choice.
Ok, I will say this because you are unrepentant of your smug attitude. If your logic survives your own criteria, then I will be happy to continue in this “debate”…
In Luke 3:36, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are given Christ’s genealogy. The problem is, when you look up the verses in the OT; Cainan is missing from the Masoretic; he is only present in the Septuagint. There is also 460 years missing in the Masoretic chronology because of this one missing patriarch.
There are dozens of examples like this, but since you are so wise, tell me why the Masoretic manuscripts exclude Cainan; while Luke and the Septuagint include Cainan. Remember: “A "law" is no longer a "law" if it fails in a single point.”
Answer me this and I will credit you with knowledge. This passage in Genesis comes before the Daniel passage, so it has priority. It is also mentioned by Luke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so we cannot assume Luke or the Holy Spirit to be wrong… What is the reason for this verse missing from the Masoretic? Why is this verse found only in the Septuagint? Tell me if you have understanding… “A "law" is no longer a "law" if it fails in a single point.”
Steve
Not to mention the numerous quotations from the LXX by the apostles. According to propphecystudent's own rule that invalidates everything he has said. He has convicted himself of being a fraud because he vaunts himself above the apostles.
Similar threads
