Did the LXX Exist BEFORE the NT age.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 3, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    A friend of mine said that the Septuagint was NOT written in 200 BCE (as every history will explain) but rather written 200 CE or later.

    This flies in the face of all evidence. Where did this come from and what are its implications?
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm thinking that the false prophet Ruckman was the first to create this lie. As a KJVO, I remember reading that line soemwhere. I'll dig up my old "junk" and take a look later this week.

    http://www.kjv1611.org/kjvdefnd/kjdefend.htm

    The implications?

    1. historical evidence does not matter
    2. if a KJVO says so then it's true no matter what.
    3. if you repeat a lie enough someone will think that it is true.
    4. it discredits the Septuagint and tangible history.
    5. it shows that some KJVOist will even lie to defend a myth.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I wonder what copy of Scripture JESUS and the various apostles quoted, as recorded in NT Scripture? If it wasn't the LXX, it was something close.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX existed in AD, not BC.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Evidence. BTW, the proper terms (all historians use) are BCE and CE. You can choose not to use them.

    But can't chose to have me believe that myth without serious proof.
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The LXX existed from BC until today.
     
  7. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    There are several Septuagints. It is the Alexandrian LXX which predates Christ. It was translated by Hebrew scholars (tradition says seventy of them, which is why the LXX), from paleo Hebrew to classical Greek starting about 280 BC (or BCE). The fact that the Alexandrian LXX existed prior to 70 AD (CE), is backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls -- those that were written prior to that date -- which have a Hebrew text which is in agreement with the Alexandrian Septuagint.

    The later versions of the Septuagint may generally be traced to the work of Origen in the second century AD (CE). Origen produced what he called his "Hexapla" in which he used the Masoretic text which dated from the Council of Jamnia in 100 AD, as his basis. He freely altered existing texts of the Hebrew, Greek, and Septuagint and other Greek versions to make them more compatible with the Masoretic text. These alterations that Origen made were documented one of the Syrian archbishops in the second or third century, and so we know what the original text contained.

    So it is wise when talking about the LXX to identify which one is being discussed. The original Alexandrian LXX is freely quoted by the Apostles and the church fathers, not to mention what Jesus is quoted as saying.

    You can see this difference in the King James Bible in the New Testament quotes that Jesus and the Apostles made from the Old Testament. When you compare those OT passages in the King James Bible, you find there is a discrepancy, because the King James Old Testament comes from the Masoretic text, which originated 100 AD at the Council of Jamnia, but the NT quotes are from the Alexandrian LXX, which was translated from the original paleo Hebrew several hundred years earlier. And the Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls that date prior to 70 AD conform to the Alexandrian translations.

    Note: I called Barry in Australia for a lot of this information as he has done the research here, so most of the above is me typing while he talked.

    He is remembering a couple of references:

    Professor Sigfreid H. Horn, in Ministry from Nov. 1987. Professor Horn was the professor of archaeology at Andrews University Berrien Springs.

    Sir Fredrick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London (Barry doesn't remember the date)
     
  8. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    The LXX existed in AD, not BC. </font>[/QUOTE]Your saying so doesn't make it so, askjo...Proof please??? :rolleyes:
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, its in the King James Bible (1611 version) somewhere I think. :rolleyes:
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    LOL...that about sums up many of the Onlyists arguments. Sad. :(
     
  11. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL, Askjo just proved point #2!

    "The LXX existed in AD, not BC." Askjo

    Did you say this because a KJVO said so Askjo?

    Proof?

    References?

    Facts?

    etc...

    Thank you
     
  12. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's pretty difficult to hold this position when there are *actual fragments* of a pre-Christian LXX existing today (view some of them HERE )
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    A new chapter of the KJVO version of The Emporer's New Clothes will soon be added to explain this part of the Alexandrian Conspiracy to destroy the Word of God (as if that were possible).

    HankD
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    From the times I have read KJVO replies it seems so often they really don't even believe their KJV Bible because they add to scripture to try and support their personal point of view. It's one thing to have a prefernce but another to call it fact and have no evidence or support.
     
  15. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Didn't know I was stepping into a mud fight. I thought it was actually history that was being asked for originally.

    How silly of me!
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    It's been going on awhile, Helen, in here and in other places. I doubt that it will end before the age does.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    The "bottom line": there are wording differences between the NT KJV quotes and the KJV OT.

    No amount of convoluted logic can change that fact.
    No amount of historical documentation can change that fact, but nonetheless, thank you to all who contributed.

    Call those quotations Septuagint, the LXX or whatever.

    In reality it is a translation of the Hebrew text into the koine Greek of the period.

    It was somewhat different in content (beyond even the translation of the words) than the Masora.

    Nevertheless, God put his stamp of approval on the differences of those passages in question (unless one wishes to say that the NT versions of these passages are not inspired).

    If God were a Masora Onlyist in the sense of the KJV Onlyists, He would have seen to it that the masoretic text (from which the KJV OT is translated) in these NT passages matched the English OT translation word-for-word.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    HankD
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    It was and you did a commendable job, Helen. For some unknown reason, a small segment of the "only sect" (an evil, divisive group that are attacking the Word of God) are teaching that the LXX did NOT exist (in any form) until Origen.

    With them, every thread turns into the same-old same-old, so we are TRYING to deal with this subject as YOU tried.

    Thanks for joining in and adding LIGHT, not HEAT.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX existed in AD, not BC. </font>[/QUOTE]Your saying so doesn't make it so, askjo...Proof please??? :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]The history did not show that the LXX existed in B.C.
     
  20. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "The history did not show that the LXX existed in B.C."

    So speaketh the most knowledgable Askjo, who knoweth even more about the subject than even the translators of the KJV, who verily disagreeeth most strongly with Askjo.
     

Share This Page

Loading...