It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: deliberator
I have just been reading about the virgin birth on this site and it talks about Matthew's use of a mistranslation of Isaiah in the Septuagint. The word for virgin is rendered in the Greek Bible as parthenos which is explicit. The original bible in Hebrew, from the massoretic text, the word used is almah with the nearest English translation for almah is a young woman.
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: chr0naut
I am very perplexed by this theory that presupposes nine different original texts.
How would 9 texts running over 300,000 letters long 99% similar, all spring up independently.
Would it not make sense that they were all copied off of yet Elder ScrollS?
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents? Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.
Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint? NO, unequivocally, absolutely NO. The Septuagint is a great HOAX. In the words of Dr. Samuel Gipp - The LXX is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination. The Septuagint represents PERFECTION in FRAUD, obviously intended to deceive, and cause doubt regarding the INTEGRITY of the Word of God.
Septuagint Fraud LXX Hoax EXPOSED
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
What is the Septuagint?
There exists (unfortunately) a Satanically inspired manuscript called the Septuagint or LXX, written by Origen, which consisted of the Apocrypha and his own Greek translation of the Old Testament. But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging. Let's stick to our preserved Bible, the King James Bible in English, and leave the Alexandrian perversions alone.
The Septuagint Exposed
The Greek Septuagint -- some Christians swear by it, and other Christians have never heard of it. It is common for the new-age bible version defenders to call upon the Greek Septuagint in their time of weakness, but as we will demonstrate in this article, the Greek Septuagint never existed. As you can see, many Christian authors are backing up this "Septuagint" as manuscript evidence in defense of things like "Codex Vaticanus," which was developed by pagan, heretical men who did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and one of the very few manuscripts used to produce the Catholic bible versions, and likewise, many subsequent new-age versions we see today.
There is a letter called "The Letter of Aristeas," that describes a translation of the Old Testament, from Hebrew to Greek, that was sent to Alexandria, Egypt by Biblical scholars in Jerusalem. The supposedly "official" document referred to in "The Letter to Aristeas" is called the LXX, or known today as The Septuagint, because it was said to have been translated by 72 Jewish scholars. Before we go into detail, it should be emphasized that the "Letter of Aristeas," is the ONLY evidence for the existence of the Septuagint.
Why are the new-age version defenders so eager to put the Septuagint on a pedestal, despite the fact that it has no historical evidence to back it up, and powerful arguments are easily made against it? Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity."
Is the Greek Septuagint Real?
...jews, compiled and wrote the “Masoretic Text” which is used by nearly the entire body of so-called, Christian churches in the world, through their manipulation of the English government in 1611. This error filled document is regarded as some kind of “Holy Sacrament”, protected and overseen by God himself. The fact that 20 members of the translation committee on the KJV of 54 men, were Jew Rabbii’s doesn’t seem to mean a damn to today’s deceived, posturing clergy.
The KJV committee “chose” to adopt the entire Masoretic Text as the complete OT, without consideration of any other documents. The entire body of jew Rabbii’s to this day, scorn, and dismiss the Greek language Septuagint as a worthless, fraudulent document. This fact alone should should be cause for concern, to any jew-wise person. In every instance of Jesus, or his Disciples quoting scripture, it is word for word, from the Septuagint, and attempts to compare with the Masoretic Text fail. This is just another proof that the Masoretic text is a phony substitute. This fact is overlooked by most translators, out of bias, prejudice, or outright planned deception.
One reason the “Dead Sea Scrolls” remain in tight security by the Jews, is that what fragments have been seen are in 100% agreement with the Septuagint, and do NOT agree with the Masoretic Text. Many translators have altered the wording in the New Testament to adhere to the Edomite jew lies. The so-called words of Christ as he was dying of the crucifixion “Father forgive them” did not appear in any ancient texts until 250-290 AD. Now, 2000 years later we have so-called christian clergy praising the Jews as “God’s Chosen.” The “woman caught in the act of adultery” did not appear until 400 AD, It was added into some translations deceitfully, and then allowed to pass for truth in the ensuing years.
Why don’t these Scriptures fit the so called GODS ‘CHOSEN’?
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman
Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.
Why do you say the Septuagint is not as accurate? Given the exactness of the Greek language wouldn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew text be the most accurate translation of all (even better than English)?
Although there is an abundance of evidence, it can be covered in one verse...
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
The bottom line is this: whether the Protestant or Catholic Bible is more "correct" depends on which version of the Old Testament is used. The New Testament seems to be the same for both (with minor variations) since it was translated mostly from the same Greek manuscripts.
Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) base their Old Testament on the Septuagint: the Hebrew texts as translated into Greek during ancient times. Supposedly this version is the version that Jesus and His disciples quoted, and if you compare the quotes in the New Testament to the original Old Testament references, they are remarkably parallel if the Septuagint is used. Supposedly the Septuagint was put together by a team of Hebrew scribes under the guidance of a chief rabbi.
Protestants, on the other hand, use the Old Testament based on the Masoretic text, which supposedly came after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Critics say that the Hebrews put together the Masoretic text without the guidance of a chief rabbi and were trying to "negate" the prophecies that point directly to Jesus as Messiah. For example, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew as "virgin" when referring to Mary, and the Masoretic translates this as "young girl." New Testament passages which quote the Old Testament often do not agree exactly with Old Testament passages based on the Masoretic text.
Others say the Masoretic text is THE correct text to use.
Now this is not intended to be a Catholic versus Protestant thread.
I was raised a Protestant, although I do not see myself "protesting" anything. I consider myself non-denominational, and an investigator trying to get to the facts. Whether or not you believe in the "truth" of the Bible is irrelevant: I am simply trying to get to which version is more "authentic" in terms of history and the way it was passed down and intended for the believers.
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents?
Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.
Although there is an abundance of evidence, it can be covered in one verse...
TextLuk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
This is Jesus speaking, of course...Jesus describes the Old Testament writings...The books of Moses, the books of the Prophets and the Psalms...This eliminates every apocryphal book the Catholic religion has added to the the Old Testament...
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents? Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.
I did come across some interesting stuff in a search though.
Out of the five links below, the first four agree that the Septuagint is a FRAUD.
The fifth and last quote says just the opposite and seems to make a decent argument for it although I am a bit suspicious because of the racism comments that I had to edit out.
So I'm still undecided...
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for. It will take time for me to get through all of this. Keep 'em coming!
There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.
If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.
There is no such thing as "the" Greek Septuagint. There are several of them, and they all differ from each other. Three are three different readings on how tall Goliath was. Just look at a modern version like the NIV and what they tell us in their own footnotes. For example, go to the book of Judges in the NIV 2011 edition. Notice the footnotes in places like Judges 10:12 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 14:15 "Some Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:13-14 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:19 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 18:7 "Some Septuagint mss."; 18:30 "Many Hebrew mss, SOME Septuagint mss. read..."20:33 "SOME Septuagint mss... the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain."
If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.
The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration). After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we? If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation. You are now God and private interpretation is your method of rule and your source of authority.
It is easy to see why Roman Catholics and modernists are so devoted to the idea that Christ used the Septuagint! But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof ? Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists). They substitute conventional wisdom in place of doing their own research and getting solid answers. There is no evidence that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used by Christ and the apostles.
According to Dewey Beagle, only in recent years (he was writing in 1960) have "scholars" begun to value the Septuagint again. Could it be that the Biblical and textual "scholars" from the 1500's to the 1900's were right after all? The Scripture offers many warnings about being careful what we believe. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8
"Scholars" are fond of saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Septuagint. In fact, there is not one single verse of the Old Testament in Greek in any manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is nothing about the Septuagint in these scrolls. There are no quotes from the Septuagint or references to it. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls mention anything about the Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no Qumran Septuagint! The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove that the "sacred language" (the language used in sermons, rituals and commentaries) of the Jews in Palestine around the time of Christ was Hebrew – not Greek.
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents? Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.
Out of the five links below, the first four agree that the Septuagint is a FRAUD.
The fifth and last quote says just the opposite and seems to make a decent argument for it although I am a bit suspicious because of the racism comments that I had to edit out.
So I'm still undecided...
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman
Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.
Why do you say the Septuagint is not as accurate? Given the exactness of the Greek language wouldn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew text be the most accurate translation of all (even better than English)?
The Septuagint has some major variances.
originally posted by: chr0naut
The LXX is validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls which all pre-date Christ (in fact, there are very few differences between the LXX and DSS, compared with the DSS and Masoretic text).
"Scholars" are fond of saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Septuagint. In fact, there is not one single verse of the Old Testament in Greek in any manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is nothing about the Septuagint in these scrolls. There are no quotes from the Septuagint or references to it. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls mention anything about the Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no Qumran Septuagint! The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove that the "sacred language" (the language used in sermons, rituals and commentaries) of the Jews in Palestine around the time of Christ was Hebrew – not Greek.
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?