Did the LXX Exist BEFORE the NT age.

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.

 

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.

 

The LXX existed in AD, not BC.

 

The LXX existed from BC until today.

 

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)

 

The LXX existed in AD, not BC. </font>[/QUOTE]Your saying so doesn't make it so, askjo...Proof please???

 

Uh, its in the King James Bible (1611 version) somewhere I think.

 

LOL...that about sums up many of the Onlyists arguments. Sad.

 

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

 

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 )

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

It's been going on awhile, Helen, in here and in other places. I doubt that it will end before the age does.

 

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

 

The LXX existed in AD, not BC. </font>[/QUOTE]Your saying so doesn't make it so, askjo...Proof please??? </font>[/QUOTE]The history did not show that the LXX existed in B.C.

 

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.