1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What OT Bible Did Jesus/Apostles Use?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true? :confused:
     
  2. Haruo

    Haruo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Doubt it. Doubt it very strongly. Ransom said nothing to suggest such a notion. The LXX is an OT version. The OT does not (or at least is not normally held to) "quote from the NT".

    Haruo
     
  3. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with Haruo's last 2 posts and I like to add that when I was talking about little differences between versions, I wasn't talking about scribal errors, but about real differences, most of whom probably already existed in various Hebrew OT's before the LXX was translated. Many of those also show up in the Dead Sea scrolls which are written in Hebrew.
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can bet it was from the correct line of manuscripts;not the corrupt Egyptian line of manuscripts.Not even from the "fairy tale for grown ups" known as the LXX..
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX quoted from the NT. Is that true? :confused: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No, the NT quotes from teh LXX. To say that there was no BC LXX is simply incorrect. It may not have been identical to the LXX that is popular today but there can be no serious denial that a Greek translation of the OT existed. To deny it is to reveal one's ignorance on this matter.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can bet it was from the correct line of manuscripts;not the corrupt Egyptian line of manuscripts.Not even from the "fairy tale for grown ups" known as the LXX.. </font>[/QUOTE]You have repeatedly shown a total lack of knowledge. You have no credibility to discuss this issue. Your only participation in this forum should be to ask questions about these things. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no answers.

    In the OT, there is no "two lines of manuscripts." There is only one MT. Anyone familiar with the Hebrew OT knows this very simple fact. The OT text is quite different than the NT text. You should be familiar with this or you should take the time to learn, instead of making these ridiculous statements.

    Secondly, there was a BC Greek translation of the OT. It is untrue to deny its existence.

    I encourage you to adopt a position of learning so that these relatively simple matters can be cleared up in your mind. That way you can establish some credibility to speak on these issues.
     
  7. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh really?? I suppose just because you wear the title "pastor" that makes you super smart;right?
    By who's standards?? Your's???? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Oh,okay :rolleyes: So I'm just supposed to set back and listen to half-baked ideas from people like you?? Gimme a break.
    Granted,but there are CORRUPTED copies of it;creating TWO lines of OTs. Do you deny this???

    No way!!!! What a revelation!!! :rolleyes:


    OK,I await your proof of a LXX that is earlier than 100 years AFTER the close of the NT canon.

    You mean a position of learning like your's? Thanks,but no-thanks.I have egnough probems without that..
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh really?? I suppose just because you wear the title "pastor" that makes you super smart;right?</font>[/QUOTE]It is not about being smart. It is about being right. Your posts shows that you are not right, that your are uninformed with basic facts. That is not the fault of anyone but yourself. We have repeatedly answered questions and shown you the facts.

    By standards of common truth.

    I have given your many breaks. I have often thought you were merely poorly taught. People who are poorly taught often repeat mistruths simply because they do not know any better. I am not asking you to set back anything. I am asking you to sit back and ask some questions and learn some things so that you do not continue down a path of false doctrine and leading others into it.

    Yes, I deny that and anyone who knows the Hebrew text will deny that because it is not true. There are not two lines of Hebrews texts. OT textual transmission if far different than NT textual transmission. Again, these are basic truths that are available to anyone who wants to see them. Yo mock it with What a revelation!!! :rolleyes: ... But your mocking only shows how vastly unfamiliar you are with basic facts.


    These facts are given in many places. This is not rocket science. It doesn't take advanced degrees. This is not even questioned except among the fringe lunatic crowd of the KJVO side. The proof is seen in your NT in the quotations of the OT. The proof is seen in the historical documentation. The proof is available. But you have to be willing to learn.

    So you want to continue in intentional ignorance?? That makes no sense. Why are you willingly ignoring the truth?? Why are you content to believe false doctrine and to mislead others?? That is inconceivable that someone who claims to love the truth can treat it so flippantly.
     
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You contradict yourself with your statement above. Let me show you the comparsions on the LXX and the OT and the NT.

    " And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Gen. 5:24 KJV) This is the Old Testament.

    " And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him." (Gen. 5:24 LXX) This is the Old Testament.

    " By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he please God." (Heb. 11:5) This is the New Testament.

    I found a source for you to read the explanation here: At first glance it would seem that the NT passage in Hebrews chapter eleven is closer to the LXX than the OT Hebrew of Genesis chapter five. As we know, the NT was written in Greek, the OT in Hebrew. However, the Hebrew word for took in this passage is lawkakh which means to take or move from one place to another. The Greek way of saying the Hebrew lawkakh is methetheken which means translated. Dr. Charles Ryrie seems to agree with this. He writes, " He (Enoch) walked (lit., walked about, i.e. lived) with God, and instead of letting him die, God took him (the same Hebrew word is used for the translation of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:3,5; cf. Heb. 11:5)." (Ryrie Study Bible, p.15). This is not a citation of the LXX, but a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for took. Further, the student should notice that this verse is a statement of EVENTS found in Genesis five, not a QUOTATION of Genesis 5:24.

    See the Website here:
    LXX"]http://members.ozemail.com.au/~seccomn/biblever/lesson08.html]LXX passages[/URL]

    You see this passages for an example that LXX quoted from the NT; therefore LXX was produced in AD, not BC.
     
  10. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously.
    Which you are not.
    You have shown me nothing but your half-baked opinions,and the opinions of those like you.
    :rolleyes:
    No sir,not poorly taught,just properly grounded in the truth.Your posts only show your pious disregard for the truth;not to mention,lack of discernment.

    Granted. But you probaly DO know better(Romans 1:18).

    Pious,aren't we?
    I think you know better(Romans 1:18)Your problem is you like the praises of men.(Colossians 3:22)
    OK,humor me.Show me a BC LXX;You have done your talking,now produce a BC LXX.see Job 33:2-3.
    I believe you are already there.(2 Thess 2:11)
     
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've been reading this duel between MV-neverest and Pastor Larry. I think that it is important to note the tone of each participant. Pastor Larry encourages one to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion based on this evidence. MV-neverest continually accuses and makes rude remarks concerning one's ability and motives. It is easy to see that only one of these parties should be taken seriously. You decide which one.

    BTW, it is common knowledge among serious bible students that the LXX was written before the NT. To deny this is simply ludicrous.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly enough, you have yet to address even one of these "half-baked opinions" with a rebuttal. The opinions of those like me happen to be the opinions of virtually every single person who knows what they are talking about. The evidence for a BC LXX is so overwhelming that it is not even questioned by people who know what they are talking about.

    The evidence is available. Start by reading teh ISBE article on teh LXX. YOu can obtain a number of other sources from various places that will show you the truth about this. You have been mislead by perhaps well-meaning people. But their intentions do not change the facts and that facts are that there was a Greek translation of teh OT prior to the time of Christ.

    If you have comments on this topic, feel free to share them along with the support for them. There is no room for your personal attacks or your unsubstantiated opinions.
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, no! Not true! No one had the LXX in BC.
     
  14. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one.
     
  15. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Askjo,
    Yes, Yes! It is true! They did have a pre-NT LXX!
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one. </font>[/QUOTE]It's right with the other first century documents ... perished in history. But the evidence remains. The bottom line is still that the evidence is available. I have given you a starting point. Now, if you are honestly interested in the truth, start reading. Otherwise, drop out of the conversation. The problem with you (among others) is that you are not interested in the truth apparently. You are interested only in furthering your own misconceptions. Be honest and do the homework. If you do both of those, it will not be long until you realize how mislead you have been. If you are not willing to do that, then withdraw from these conversations. They are based on honesty and willingness to learn from one another. So far, you have shown no interest in that and it is distracting to those of us who are interested in it.
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, let's see, who are they?
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK,where is a BC LXX?? I would like to see one. </font>[/QUOTE]It's right with the other first century documents ... perished in history. But the evidence remains. The bottom line is still that the evidence is available. I have given you a starting point. Now, if you are honestly interested in the truth, start reading. Otherwise, drop out of the conversation. The problem with you (among others) is that you are not interested in the truth apparently. You are interested only in furthering your own misconceptions. Be honest and do the homework. If you do both of those, it will not be long until you realize how mislead you have been. If you are not willing to do that, then withdraw from these conversations. They are based on honesty and willingness to learn from one another. So far, you have shown no interest in that and it is distracting to those of us who are interested in it. </font>[/QUOTE]MV-neverist asked you, " WHERE is a BC LXX? You did not answer to this question. MV-neverist and I would like to see it. We need to see on your *evidence* concerning the LXX in BC.
     
  19. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,853
    Likes Received:
    246
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here are a few references. Look up the OT verse in the LXX (Greek) and in the MT (Hebrew). THEN look up the companion NT verse and see that it is quoting the LXX (one of the Greek versions of the OT) and deviating from the Hebrew.

    (I am assuming a good working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. If you don't, then SHUT UP about something you know nothing about and are only parroting the load given to you by your guru)

    1. Gen 47:31 and Heb 11:21
    2. Ex 2:14 and Acts 7:27, 35
    3. Ex 3:2 and Acts 7:30
    4. Ex 3:5 and Acts 7:33
    5. Deut 24:1 and Mt 5:31, 19:7, Mk 10:4
    6. Deut 25:5 and Mk 12:19, Lk 20:28

    That's a few selected from the Pentateuch. Have a dozen more direct OT quotations in the NT from the LXX.

    (Credit to Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament by Gleason Archer. There are many NT quotations that "could be" from the LXX but not certain)
     
Loading...