Septuagint and God’s Word

how did it appear to u that it is "OK" to add the Apocrypha?

most KJBOs i've talked to r embarrassed that the 1611 included the Apocrypha.

 

so, let it be known--in ur savant opinion--if we shd listen to KJBO Alexandra on our board, whose name reflects some of the stuff u're propounding.

say, just trying to follow ur "logic" ...

 

Yes, it clearly is. It, like other translations, is not the original. It should be treated as a witness to the text, just like all other translations should. The LXX is here (i.e., it is preserved) and it is God's word (i.e., it contains a translation of the Hebrew OT). There is it is God's preserved word.

 

Yes, but again what is the relevance? That passage says nothing about writing and translating.

What version are you reading?!? The verse has nothing to do with a translation of Hebrew manuscripts into Greek.

 

AGAIN, why did the JEWS write the *NT* in Greek? Because most Jews read and spoke Greek.

Whoa,whoa,whoa!!! You condem the KJB translators of violating revelation 22:19;but you seem as though it is OK for them(whoever it was) to ADD the RCC's NON-INSPIRED books to the LXX..(like there ever was one before Christ)

Ladies and Gentlemen,I present to you the amazing,and everchanging double standard!!! </font>[/QUOTE] Rev was written AFTER the rest of the books, the apocryphals and the NT books. I no more see a problem with adding apocryphal books to the LXX as I do with the early church adding books to the NT as they were written. Do you think that adding Jude to the NT was in violation of Rev 22:19?

BTW, I don't "condem the KJB translators of violating revelation 22:19", even though they added those same apocryphal books to the KJV Do you?

"But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal." (emphasis added)

"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded." (emphasis added)

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." (emphasis added)

The three quotes above come from the KJV translators, and can be found in any KJV that includes the original preface from the 1611 edition. Sadly (and ironically), there are those on this board who believe the KJV translators were the most knowledgeable Bible historians and translators in the history of mankind while they actually translated the text, but for some reason are idiots when they wrote the preface. Go figure.

 

JYD said:

Nope,there is no evedence of a pre-Christian LXX.In short,there is no Greek Old Testament written earlier than 100 years AFTER the completion of the New Testament canon.

By the same argument, neither can the Hebrew Masoretic text pre-date the Christian era, because its extant witnesses are considerably later.

By the logic of your argument, I have to conclude that the "Old" Testament actually post-dates the "New."

 

JYD:

Well I know this much:


1)The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture were the Levites,according to Deuteronomy 17:18;31:25-26,and Malichi 2:7.

[etc.]

And, of course, we all know (since we have read our Bibles) that every single Jew obeyed every single article of the Law without exception and never, ever, ever disobeyed even the slightest part of it, throughout their entire history. Right?

 

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that Scripture is not enough to resolve that matter? Did God make an mistake concerning the Levites and Old Testament Scripture stewardship? And did God really mean what He said about the Jews in Egypt,as per Jeremiah 44? What about II Peter 3:16?? Ever heard of that one??

 

MV-neverist said:

What are you trying to say?

JYD appealed to the Law to say that the Septuagint could not have come about before the Christian era, because it would have violated the Law.

Well, the testimony of the Bible concerning the history of the Jews is that they weren't particularly Law-abiding.

You can't point to the Law and say that no Jew would have permitted the Scriptures to be translated into Greek by a non-Levite, any more than you can point to our law and say that there is no such thing as a murderer.

 

Romans 3:8

 

Romans 3:8

Proverbs 5:19

 

Why would a bunch of Jews write greek manuscripts? Yet this is exactly what a bunch of Jews named Paul, Peter, James, John etc. did and we call it the New Testament. Only a hypermarcionite would suggest we should only use the parts of the NT written by Gentiles, and precious few of any sort believe any of the NT except possibly Matthew (on patristic grounds) was written in anything but Greek.

Haruo