Someone help me out here.....

Apocrypha books were written after the books of the Hebrew Bible. And in all those books can be found either a teaching that is simply not true or contrary to the word of God. I do not have a handy list. Examples can be found.

 

That's an excellent question the simple answer to which contradicts 99% of scholarship: the Septuagint is a post New Testament work. There was no Septuagint in the days of our Lord and his apostles, and they never quoted from the Septuagint a day in their lives, anymore than Jude quoted from some book of Enoch. It is painfully (literally) evident to a regular Bible reader that someone read N.T. passages that seemingly did not match the O.T. and then wrote a "Septuagint" to make them match - although a simple Bible study could have made them match. For a study of the evidence, please see:
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

 

Bunch of hooey from a well known KJVOnly source, ultimately going back to Ruckman.

 

You say that as if those were bad things.
It would be more helpful to counter the evidence than unexplainably thus dismiss it.

 

Put another way: *who* among legitimate (non-KJVO) scholars agrees with the KJVO/Ruckmanite position regarding the nonexistence of the LXX in the BC period?

 

What is "legitimate"? We probably have differing criteria for that. We still do not have any B.C. copy of the Septuagint. All scholars confess as much.

 

This is so rare a position (Rukaminite) as to be questionable.

 

Well, I understand that. It's a natural reaction. But such skepticism must also be tempered with the understanding that many a time the majority was wrong about many an issue. In the Bible, the scribes, who were in the majority, were almost always in the wrong. The fishermen were right. I'm not saying that the minority is always right. As far as I'm concerned, and after sincere prayer and research, I am satisfied that most (not all) scholars are erudite fools and that even the saved ones approach the Bible with the humanistic/naturalistic textual criticism mindset. I cannot account for the majority position when:
A) there are no B.C. manuscripts (and not even 1st century A.D. manuscripts) for a supposedly famous Bible version. I just don't get how they can be so certain.
B) The O.T. in only that version mysteriously matches the difficult N.T. references to it - as if manipulated to do so
C) the historical background for that version is a fictitious Egyptian story
D) I'm Middle Eastern man who preaches to Jews and can't imagine Jews using a Greek O.T. Some would rather die. Literally.
E) Given the negative Biblical connotations of Egypt (I'm reasoning spiritually here, not humanistically) I can't imagine Christ quoting an Egyptian Greek version. Christ wouldn't even countenance the Greeks who sought him in John.
F) the Septuagint is hopelessly messed up in many a place

 

A. There are BC fragments of the LXX. If we happily use papyri fragments to show the antiquity of the NT books, seems we should give the LXX the same courtesy.

D. Ascribing the same opinions that modern day Jews have to Jews 2000 years ago seems unwise.

E. Ah, the old everything related to Egypt must be tossed out angle. I'm not buying it.

 

What were Josephus and Philo using in the first century AD? Hint #1: it wasn't always the Hebrew OT. Hint #2: it often agreed more with the LXX than any other possibility.

Ruckmanism's claims regarding the LXX are phoney, and only intended to promote KJVOism.

(This area of discussion should be moved to the translations and manuscripts section).

 

Which fragments? Attested by who?
It may seem so, but not to Jews. Not to religious Jews.
You don't have to buy it. It's Biblical and it's free :)

 

Rather than continue being wearied by the KJVO Ruckmanite nonsense, I suffice to close with a QUOTE (emphasis added) from the Jewish Encyclopedia online:

"It is *more than probable* that the whole of the (Hebrew) Bible was translated into Greek *before* the end of the 2nd century BC."

www.jewishencyclopedia.com, under "Bible translations" and "Septuagint"

Q.E.D.

 

"Rather than continue discussing evidence presented by a man that believes the Bible and with whom I disagree, I will quote lost men who don't believe the Bible and rest me on their mere expression of a probability."

 

Nuff said.

 

So Papyrus Fouad #266 doesn't exist?

And please cite the verse that says the LXX didn’t exist prior to the 2nd century AD. I must have missed that one.

 

Translation from Dr Arlo Guthrie:

"Yes sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie -- I put that envelope under that pile of garbage."

 

Papyrus Rylands 458 fragments of a LXX is dated by the style of Greek writing to tbe 2nd century B.C.E. prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

Based on what?

 

Humanly speaking, the Christian canon was not completely established until after a couple of centuries of the church age, though God had it in His mind, of course. When the churches finally established an Orthodox canon in answer to Marcion's faulty canon in the 2nd century, which left out anything he thought was Jewish, being virulently anti-Semetic. The canon of the early church fathers did not include the Apocrypha.

So why were they in the Septuagint (LXX)? I don't think that answer is recorded in history, so we must guess. But But my take on your question is that the LXX is:

1. OT era stuff, not relevant to the church.
2. Not in Hebrew, so not considered authoritative by the churches.
3. Much of the LXX is really strange, and obviously not spiritual. Just read "Bel and the Dragon," and you'll know why sensible Christians agree that the Apocrypha is not part of God's Word.

 

Dr. Stringer's article is not reliable. For example, he invents a factoid from Dewey Beegle (not Beagle, as he has it) in his "Conclusion." I have the book, and what Stringer claims is not there. Dr. Stringer is a good guy, but inaccurate here. (He's also written a falsehood about me, hopefully inadvertent, in his "The Word for All Nations" article.)