Septuagint still perfect?

Thanks! Now I can get there. :thumbs:

 

That would be true, since as I recall the OT apocryphal books were all originally written in Greek.

 

What we need to keep in perspective is that the Hebrew scriptures were not regularly bound together in codex form before, during, and even after the time of Christ. The Jews still enjoy the use of scrolls today. Before the common employment of the codex the issue of which books were 'in' and which were 'out' could be extremely fluid.

Since some apocryphal books are among the Qumran discoveries, it could be said that those were "included" (at least in that community). Therefore (especially if one accepts the earlier 250BC date), the original Greek translations of the Torah were probably in scroll form. The particular 'order' of the books need not be considered fixed until the advent of the codex.

Even after the codex became standard, the entire manuscript OT could rarely be found in one volume (basically until smaller script became vogue in about the 13th century). The Scriptures were still being issued in multiple volumes after movable-type printing (even into the 19th century). The pandect Bible is relatively 'modern' convenience.

 

The Roman Catholic church argues that most of their deutrocanonical works were originally written in Hebrew.

 

Uh huh. Now if they only had manuscripts or a church father or Josephus to back them up.

 

According to a Greek scholar friend of mine, Ecclesiasticus was originally written in Hebrew, and there are fragments extant in Hebrew. Baruch also was evidently written in Hebrew. :type:

 

OK. I've also read that some scholars seem think that some structure of Judith in Greek betrays it's Hebrew origin.

 

Let me say again, FTR, that I had the privilege of meeting Dr. John R. Rice, many years ago in the spring of 1969, at the "Sword" in Murfreesboro, received the "Sword of the Lord," along with "Christian Beacon," "Evangel," and "Christian Victory," for several years, although do not take any of them now, and I believe that all but the "Sword" are no longer published.

I fully appreciate what Dr. John R. Rice has done over the years, and I have several of his books, including one I consider extremely good, on prayer.

But I will also take this space to say that I believe that John Himes, known on the Baptist Board as John of Japan has a much clearer and deeper understanding of grace and the issues of "repentance" and "Lordship Salvation" than did Dr. John R. Rice. That is not intended to say what Dr. Rice did or did not believe, but merely to say that John of Japan articulates the position and teachings of "free grace" extremely well, and I suggest all would do well to listen to him, in what he says.

I appreciate what he has written on these subjects, if and when he does venture into one of these discussions.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=35179&postcount=46

And especially in this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=45146&highlight=Repentance

I personally wish he could be a bit closer, geographically, to the USA, where I have no doubt, that he would be heard much more, in this ongoing controversy.

However, it seems the Lord wants him more in translating the Bible into the Japanese language. Keep up the good work, John of Japan! :thumbs:

Bet you never expected these plugs, which you in no way sought, in a thread on the LXX, huh John?

Incidentally, I would not know him, nor would he know me, were I to meet him on the street, if he were not wearing his blue outfit. I'm the fat guy with the white beard and wearing a baseball cap, John. :laugh:

Ed

 

I would like to know how a Greek version of the Hebrew writings could be superior to the Masoretic Hebrew writings???

 

Personally, I just wonder what 'text' i. e. 'scroll' of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus was reading from, in the account found in Luke 4:16-21??

The words contained there don't seem to be from the 'Masoretic text', the 'Dead Sea scrolls', the LXX, or any other known text of today.

Ed

 

For the Christian it is rather heart gripping and makes all others busy griping!:laugh:

If Jesus read from the Septuagint, then what he read he most assuredly KNEW it was RIGHT!:godisgood:

 

Despite the 'funny', above, I agree, but offer that Jesus apparently did not read from the LXX in Lk. 4.

Ed

 

I wouldn't wonder about a man made scroll needing to exist to satisfy my mind other than that Jesus said something I needed to hear!:godisgood:

Besides, you're demanding that Luke quote exactly what Jesus said years after His being crucified, even more years after his reading Isaiah. And I'm not exactly certain Luke was even around at that point in time to hear precisely what Jesus said or read.

It is easily understood that Jesus was reading from the then copy of Isaiah and very possibly that Luke used another scroll that doesn't even differ from the historic evidences of Isaiah.

On that note, it might not be the scroll Jesus read from, but the reference Luke made was the scroll that ought to be sought after.

Many offerings of inspired writings are subject to the viewpoint of the penman. Many claims of "error" are easily overcome and reconciled knowing this fact.

So? How is it a Greek version of the O.T. could be superior to what even the Jews hold dear as their writings?

What it boils down to as far as what is "best" according to Jewish Hebrew scholars is which rabbinic order they follow, right? Right.

What we have found is the auspicious dedication of the Masorites to have maintained the Hebrew writings perfectly and are found in the Byzantine order of MSS.

Thus the KJB stands alone.

 

And Jesus would not have read from something after His Ascension and Luke had access to since the LXX in origin wasn't until 100 A.D.

See how easy that was?:wavey:

 

This isn't true. The LXX was writen long before.

 

Whoops! You're right. I had my "b.c's" and "a.d.'s" backwards.

The adamant view of what Jesus read from is the strawman still. The view rather should be from the writer's viewpoint who is the inspired penman, not the actual historic evidence to prove anything. Historic evidences don't always prove to be accurate.

 

I had my thoughts morre aligned with the beginning of the RCC, which we all know had nuttin to do with anything.:laugh:

 

"The RCC" had a lot to do with a lot of things.

Doesn't mean I agree with them, necessarily, and more often than not, I do not, although I do agree in one respect. They do believe in the word of God, even though I believe that just as did the Pharisees and scribes (Mk. 7: 1-6), the RCC often is "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." (Mk, 7:13 - NKJV)

Ed

 

Yep, but try and say that about the KJB in perfect context, without making a false claim.

That cannot be said about the Septuagint.:godisgood: