Septuagint real?

Here is a goldmine of data on the LXX:

http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Use the slide bar on the left to access the various works.

Put on a pot of coffee, historical works can be very dry

BTW and IMO, this quote from the site(s) above is the real reason for the KJVO hate of all things septuagint:

After all since the NT uses the LXX found in these mss (in some cases word-for-word) in their minds (KJVO), this would give these Alexandrian mss far more authority than they are willing to allow them.


HankD

 

Here is a - for instance - where the so-called "false" LXX is a problem for KJVO, even KJVO prefered:

First:
KJV Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Notice the "he saith" just before the phrase And let all the angels of God worship him.

This phrase is indicated as being in the OT because of the "he saith".

But where is it in the OT? It can't be found in the KJV as far as I can tell.

But, here is the English translation from the Greek of the LXX:

LXX Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.

Here is the KJV translation of the Masoretic text:

KJV Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

The Hebrew MT omits (or the LXX adds) the phrase and let all the angels of God worship him; and several other words.

This phrase (as far as I can tell) is supported by the LXX only in the OT.

Yet here it is in the NT Book of Hebrews (and wouldn't they of all folks know if it were something "he saith") quoted as an OT Scripture.

And yes, this is a problem area in my own view of the Masora.

And there are others.

HankD

 

Like I said in my previous post ...

to deny the validity of the Septuagint falls upon those that claim it is not valid.

Early Church Fathers did not have this problem ... Yes, it is not completely clear whether the NT authors used it or not.

But, their students were the ECF's and the Fathers did not have a problem with the Septuagint. The Jews did, and that seems to be the reason for the Masora being brought back to prominence (that is from memory).

 

That's the worst bit of logic I've seen in a while. The earliest extant manuscripts of the OT (aside from the Septuagint) are from the first century AD so IT didn't exist until then? There are no extant references to Christ until the middle of the second century so HE didn't exist until then? If you believe the conservative theory of OT authorship (which I do), the Pentateuch wasn't written until c. 1450 BC so the creation and Abrahamic histories of the book of Genesis didn't happen until then?

Game over, please try again.

 

... I like, "Game Over" better.

 

Wonder where the AV TRANSLATORS got their info? Evidently they believed the LXX to be both real and ancient.

 

Sorry,but the "game" was never in play to begin with.This modern-day Alexandrian prevarication flies in the face of NUMEROUS OT commandments concerning the Jews(the supposed translators of the bogus specter) and Egypt.Do you actually think the Lord would violate Romans 3:8??

Yet another Alexandrian x-files case debunked by Scripture.

 

The "game" here is Slambo's claim that the lack of an extant BC LXX is proof there never was one. That is a logical fallacy, it only goes to show the ignorance of KJV onlyism. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

Slambo
"The lack of an extant bc LXX is proof e'nuff."
"
Wrong! You can look at the extant bc LXX fragments yourself.
http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/thumb.htm

 

Augustine writing to Jerome 394AD in which he comments on Jerome's new Latin version of the Old Testament and advises him in his future labours to adhere more closely to the text of the Septuagint.

How likely is it that in 394AD this supposed "fraud" would be called an "authority of the highest esteem" by Augustine writing to Jerome?

HankD

 

Slambo said:

Proof is there IS no proof for a BC LXX.

Ho hum. Whose turn is it to post a link to the LXX fragments found at Qumran?

 

mioque did.

HankD

 

I have never heard anyone claim that the LXX is not B.C. I used to be KJVO (thank God for His grace) and I never recall hearing that claim. Is this some new KJVO "idea"?

 

It is promoted by Dr. Peter Ruckman. You can go to his "recommended reading" website and purchase this book:

Mythological Septuagint Peter S. Ruckman.

Found online in the public domain at : http://www.kjv1611.org/recread.htm

HankD

 

Thanks for the info, but I think I will save my money for somthing I would benefit from by reading.

 

A capital idea!

Dr. Ruckman is quite the mythology expert...he INVENTS enuff of it!

Isn't it just GREAT to see the KJVOs solemnly place such high stock in the translators of their fave version...till they see the things those translators wrote that would've caused the KJVO myth to have been stillborn if more people woulda read what THEY wrote as they read the codwallop from the early KJVOs?

 

Anti_Alexandrian: Sorry,but the "game" was never in play to begin with.

That's right. The AV translators scored the winning goal before we were born.


This modern-day Alexandrian prevarication

So the AV translators were wrong to assign a great age to it...let alone its veracity?

flies in the face of NUMEROUS OT commandments concerning the Jews(the supposed translators of the bogus specter) and Egypt.

Please show us from the KJV a prohibition against translating the OT into Greek.


Do you actually think the Lord would violate Romans 3:8??

No...and this Scripture has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Yet another Alexandrian x-files case debunked by Scripture.

Actually, it's yet another KJVO attempt to run an end-around from the TRUTH.

 

You asked for information and your received it and indeed you can benefit from reading it by being better equipped to help others see though his misinformation, especially having been KJVO yourself.

Many of his clones will deny the things which he has said unless you document it from his writings.

HankD