Doubts about the Septuagint

[eclipseEventSigns]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

There's not "supposed" about it. The Septuagint is a COLLECTION of Greek translations of the Hebrew original text. Yes, the Septuagint is NOT what was translated originally. It's been added to and replaced through the centuries. For example, the original LXX translation of Daniel was so flawed and wrong that it was replaced in the early centuries AD by another Greek translation. There are other examples as well. And that is not getting in to the very many differences from the Masoretic which changes the meaning for a lot of texts. It is an interesting thing to compare but by no means authoritative. And early Christians did NOT use it at all. They and the rest of the Jewish population used the Aramaic translations.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

What do you mean there's no Septuagint - Christ Himself quoted from it.

As Christians we accept all the books Jesus quoted from, which includes the Septuagint.

That is a completely false statement.

 

[Mr GLee]

Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint......should we find all of those verses and draw a line through them with a marky?

Quotes are taken from the word of God. He is multi lingo.

 

[Lees]

No, who didn't what? You quoted my entire post. If you are saying the M did not use textual criticism you are sadly mistaken. I am guessing you simply do not know what that is or how it is done.

If he wasn't quoting from a Greek translation it still is the same as what is in the Greek translation substantively. But many Jews spoke Greek which is why it became necessary for there to be a Greek translation. And many spoke Aramaic. There is a good chance Jesus did.

I cannot fathom how you conclude that if what was in a letter as to how the Septuagint came into being was false, that means there was no Greek translation. The Septuagint is not in the letter is it?

The earliest translations of individual OT books into Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, go back as far as the third century b.c..The most significant of these is the Greek. Of the Greek the Codex Vaticanus (fourth century a.d.) preserves a nearly complete Greek translation of the OT.

All Greek translations of the OT are considered the Septuagint. That is what they are called. None are basing anything on the letter. The letter of Aristeas is not the Septuagint. What is known as the Greek OT, called the Septuagint, has nothing to do with a letter. If the letter was fraudulent or its contents were, it is no way related to actual Greek translations of the OT and it does not mean that there are none, and it certainly does not mean that our translations should not rely in any way on Greek translations. And it seems like that is what you are implying. If you are not, then you need to be clear.

You said Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. I said, 'no they didn't'.

No, you said Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. Now you want to say it doesn't matter because the Greek translation is what He would have said. Silly.

The only evidence for any 'Septuagint' is the letter of Aristeas. Just because you find a Greek translation somewhere doens't mean it was of the Septuagint. And you find none before Christ save 4 pieces or fragments, called the Ryland fragments. The first 3 are called 'Papyrus 458' and contain (Deut. 23, 25:13, 26:12,17,19 and 28:31-33). The fourth adds (Deut. 32:7). That's it. And no New Testament writer quotes any of these verses.

All these prove is that someone translated part of (Deuteronomy) to Greek before 150 B.C. It doesn't prove any Septuagint.

You say 'all Greek translations of the Old Testament are considered the Septuagint'. How ridiculous a statement. I'm not saying there were not some. I am saying there was no Septuagint.

And, you have none except the few Ryland fragments before Christ. All the rest of your 'Greek translations' were well after the New Testament. In other words, the big claim of the Septuagint is that it was a Greek translation before the time of Christ. So that Christ and apostles could quote from it. So that others could claim that much in the Masortic Text was in error because the New Testament quotes align with the 'supposed Septuagint'. Yet all of these are only found after the time of Christ. There was no Septuagint before the time of Christ...or after. Only Greek tranlations dated well after the time of Christ.

Lees

 

[Lees]

There's not "supposed" about it. The Septuagint is a COLLECTION of Greek translations of the Hebrew original text. Yes, the Septuagint is NOT what was translated originally. It's been added to and replaced through the centuries. For example, the original LXX translation of Daniel was so flawed and wrong that it was replaced in the early centuries AD by another Greek translation. There are other examples as well. And that is not getting in to the very many differences from the Masoretic which changes the meaning for a lot of texts. It is an interesting thing to compare but by no means authoritative. And early Christians did NOT use it at all. They and the rest of the Jewish population used the Aramaic translations.

If the Septuagint is not what was translated originally, then how is it the Septuagint?

You say the original Septuagint translation of Daniel was flawed. What original translation? Show me the original from the supposed Septuagint. Where does it come from?

Lees

 

[Lees]

Both Acts 2:20 and Acts 2:21 are exact quotations from the LXX.

Show me where the Septuagint said that. In other words, what makes them of the Septuagint?

Lees

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

If the Septuagint is not what was translated originally, then how is it the Septuagint?

You say the original Septuagint translation of Daniel was flawed. What original translation? Show me the original from the supposed Septuagint. Where does it come from?

Lees

You'll have to do your own research. Like I did when I actually researched whether or not the Septuagint was trustworthy. Clue - just read the introduction to any of the LXX english versions. Have you even done that?

 

[Arial]

Not

No, you said Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. Now you want to say it doesn't matter because the Greek translation is what He would have said. Silly.

Not what I said and if you do that again, a warning will be issued. It is against the rules to deliberately misrepresent what a person says and I made sure I made it clear. Here it is:

If he wasn't quoting from a Greek translation it still is the same as what is in the Greek translation substantively.

The only evidence for any 'Septuagint' is the letter of Aristeas. Just because you find a Greek translation somewhere doens't mean it was of the Septuagint.

What part of it is called the Septuagint do you not understand? Read any theologian, scholar, or study Bible text notes, and they will refer to the Greek translation of the OT as the Septuagint. There is absolutely no reason to bring the letter into the issue and cast doubt on translations. Do you have any idea of what is involved in translation when no original documents are available but only copies and translations? Everything must be meticulously examined and cross examined in an attempt to accurately reproduce the original. Thousands of documents and translations are involved. It can't be done by reading one letter, that contains no OT documents but only a theory of how the Greek translation occurred, accepting at face value it is a fraud, didn't happen that way, and then say there is no Septuagint.

But even if you realize you are wrong, making a mountain out of a mole hill, you will not back down or stop fighting.

You say 'all Greek translations of the Old Testament are considered the Septuagint'. How ridiculous a statement. I'm not saying there were not some. I am saying there was no Septuagint.

Why is the Greek translation always called the Septuagint? If you gripe is that it shouldn't be, then argue that. Don't argue as though if it is called the Septuagint then it is invalid.

In other words, the big claim of the Septuagint is that it was a Greek translation before the time of Christ.

The Septuagint has never spoken any such thing. It is the OT. But when Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT in Greek, (Jesus possibly in Aramaic) it is the same as it is in our OT.

There was no Septuagint before the time of Christ...or after. Only Greek tranlations dated well after the time of Christ.

Not true. There were portions of OT in Greek and other languages in 300bc and some produced in the intertestimental period.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It would serve everyone well to spend some time reading the introduction (the history of the text) of any English version of the Septuagint. There is so much misinformation and arguing over nothing going on.

 

[CrowCross]

You can draw a line wherever you like. How can they be taken from the Septuagint when there is no Septuagint. Where then are they taken from?

Lees

????????

 

[Lees]

Not

Not what I said and if you do that again, a warning will be issued. It is against the rules to deliberately misrepresent what a person says and I made sure I made it clear. Here it is:



What part of it is called the Septuagint do you not understand? Read any theologian, scholar, or study Bible text notes, and they will refer to the Greek translation of the OT as the Septuagint. There is absolutely no reason to bring the letter into the issue and cast doubt on translations. Do you have any idea of what is involved in translation when no original documents are available but only copies and translations? Everything must be meticulously examined and cross examined in an attempt to accurately reproduce the original. Thousands of documents and translations are involved. It can't be done by reading one letter, that contains no OT documents but only a theory of how the Greek translation occurred, accepting at face value it is a fraud, didn't happen that way, and then say there is no Septuagint.

But even if you realize you are wrong, making a mountain out of a mole hill, you will not back down or stop fighting.


Why is the Greek translation always called the Septuagint? If you gripe is that it shouldn't be, then argue that. Don't argue as though if it is called the Septuagint then it is invalid.

The Septuagint has never spoken any such thing. It is the OT. But when Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT in Greek, (Jesus possibly in Aramaic) it is the same as it is in our OT.

Not true. There were portions of OT in Greek and other languages in 300bc and some produced in the intertestimental period.

What Greek translation is it the same as? Your accusation of me as 'deliberately misrepresenting you' is not true. I find your statement 'not clear' at all.

What part of it do 'you' not understand. To identify any Greek translation of the Old Testament, as the Septuagint, is to place them 2nd and 3rd century B.C. Based solely on the fraudulent 'Letter of Aisteas'. This means some can use some later Greek manuscripts such as the Alexandrian manuscripts and identify them as products of the Septuagint, and use them to present quotes of Christ from.

Well, the Letter of Aristeas is the only proof of any Septuagint. After that, you have no Greek translations before the time of Christ, save the few pieces already mentioned. But what you want to say, is any Greek translation is the product of the Septuagint, such as the Alexandrian Texts.

OK. Let's drop the claim of the Letter of Aristeas as to any Septuagint. Pretend it no longer plays a role. Show me Greek translations of the Old Testament before the time of Christ.

No. The Septuagint is not the Old Testament. The claim is made that it is a translation of the Old Testament in Greek. And that is based on only much later Greek texts, after the time of Christ, that many claim Christ and the apostles quoted from. The assumption, belief, is that their origin is B.C.

Lees

 

[Rella]

You can draw a line wherever you like. How can they be taken from the Septuagint when there is no Septuagint. Where then are they taken from?

Lees

In light of the questionable 35 years or 135 below in reply 39 perhaps you can translate the following for us.

Γένεσις - Κεφάλαιο 10 - Septuagint Text of Genesis - The Septuagint: LXX

10 ΑΥΤΑΙ δὲ αἱ γενέσεις τῶν υἱῶν Νῶε, Σήμ, Χάμ, ᾿Ιάφεθ, καὶ ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς υἱοὶ μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 2 Υἱοὶ ᾿Ιάφεθ· Γαμὲρ καὶ Μαγὼγ καὶ Μαδοὶ καὶ ᾿Ιωύαν καὶ ᾿Ελισὰ καὶ...

www.septuagint.bible

• Home
• Text ▼

Γένεσις - Genesis​

Γένεσις - Κεφάλαιο 10​

10

ΑΥΤΑΙ δὲ αἱ γενέσεις τῶν υἱῶν Νῶε, Σήμ, Χάμ, ᾿Ιάφεθ, καὶ ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς υἱοὶ μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν.

2 Υἱοὶ ᾿Ιάφεθ· Γαμὲρ καὶ Μαγὼγ καὶ Μαδοὶ καὶ ᾿Ιωύαν καὶ ᾿Ελισὰ καὶ Θοβὲλ καὶ Μοσόχ καὶ Θείρας. 3 καὶ υἱοὶ Γαμέρ· ᾿Ασχανὰζ καὶ Ριφὰθ καὶ Θοργαμά. 4 καὶ υἱοὶ ᾿Ιωύαν· ᾿Ελισὰ καὶ Θάρσεις, Κίτιοι, Ρόδιοι. 5 ἐκ τούτων ἀφωρίσθησαν νῆσοι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ αὐτῶν, ἕκαστος κατὰ γλῶσσαν ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῶν.

6 Υἱοὶ δὲ Χάμ· Χοὺς καὶ Μερσαΐν Φοὺδ καὶ Χαναάν. 7 υἱοὶ δὲ Χούς· Σαβὰ καὶ Εὐϊλὰ καὶ Σαβαθὰ καὶ Ρεγμὰ καὶ Σαβαθακά. υἱοὶ δὲ Ρεγμά· Σαβὰ καὶ Δαδάν. 8 Χοὺς δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Νεβρώδ. οὗτος ἤρξατο εἶναι γίγας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· 9 οὗτος ἦν γίγας κυνηγὸς ἐναντίον Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ· διὰ τοῦτο ἐροῦσιν, ὡς Νεβρὼδ γίγας κυνηγὸς ἐναντίον Κυρίου. 10 καὶ ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ Βαβυλὼν καὶ ᾿Ορὲχ καὶ ᾿Αρχὰδ καὶ Χαλάννη ἐν τῇ γῇ Σεναάρ. 11 ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκείνης ἐξῆλθεν ᾿Ασσοὺρ καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε τὴν Νινευΐ καὶ τὴν Ροωβὼθ πόλιν καὶ τὴν Χαλὰχ 12 καὶ τὴν Δασὴ ἀνὰ μέσον Νινευΐ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσο Χαλάχ· αὕτη ἡ πόλις μεγάλη. 13 καὶ Μεσραΐν ἐγέννησε τοὺς Λουδιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς ᾿Ενεμετιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Λαβιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Νεφθαλιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Πατροσωνιεὶμ 14 καὶ τοὺς Χασλωνιείμ, ὅθεν ἐξῆλθε Φυλιστιείμ, καὶ τοὺς Καφθοριείμ. 15 Χαναὰν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σιδῶνα πρωτότοκον αὐτοῦ 16 καὶ τὸν Χετταῖον καὶ τὸν ᾿Ιεβουσαῖον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αμορραῖον καὶ τὸν Γεργεσαῖον καὶ τὸν Εὐαῖον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αρουκαῖον 17 καὶ τὸν ᾿Ασενναῖον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αράδιον καὶ τὸν Σαμαραῖον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αμαθί. 18 καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο διεσπάρησαν αἱ φυλαὶ τῶν Χαναναίων, 19 καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ ὅραι τῶν Χαναναίων ἀπὸ Σιδῶνος ἕως ἐλθεῖν εἰς Γεραρὰ καὶ Γαζάν, ἕως ἐλθεῖν ἕως Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας, ᾿Αδαμὰ καὶ Σεβωΐμ ἕως Δασά. 20 οὗτοι υἱοὶ Χάμ, ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν, κατὰ γλώσσας αὐτῶν, ἐν ταῖς χώραις αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῶν.

21 Καὶ τῷ Σὴμ ἐγεννήθη καὶ αὐτῷ, πατρὶ πάντων τῶν υἱῶν ῞Εβερ, ἀδελφῷ ᾿Ιάφεθ τοῦ μείζονος. 22 υἱοὶ Σήμ· ᾿Ελὰμ καὶ ᾿Ασσοὺρ καὶ ᾿Αρφαξὰδ καὶ Λοὺδ καὶ ᾿Αρὰμ καὶ Καϊνᾶν. 23 καὶ υἱοὶ ᾿Αράμ· Οὒζ καί Οὒλ καὶ Γατὲρ καὶ Μοσόχ. 24 καὶ ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἐγέννησε τὸν Καϊνᾶν, καὶ Καϊνᾶν ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλά, Σαλὰ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ῞Εβερ. 25 καὶ τῷ ῞Εβερ ἐγεννήθησαν δύο υἱοί· ὄνομα τῷ ἑνὶ Φαλέγ, ὅτι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ διεμερίσθη ἡ γῆ, καὶ ὄνομα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιεκτάν. 26 ᾿Ιεκτὰν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ελμωδὰδ καὶ Σαλὲθ καὶ τὸν Σαρμὼθ καὶ ᾿Ιαρὰχ καὶ ῾Οδορρὰ καὶ Αἰβὴλ καὶ Δεκλὰ 27 καὶ Εὐὰλ καὶ ᾿Αβιμαὲλ καὶ Σαβὰ 28 καὶ Οὐφεὶρ καὶ Εὐειλὰ καὶ ᾿Ιωβάβ. 29 πάντες οὗτοι υἱοὶ ᾿Ιεκτάν. 30 καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ κατοίκησις αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Μασσῆ ἕως ἐλθεῖν εἰς Σαφηρά, ὄρος ἀνατολῶν. 31 οὗτοι υἱοὶ Σήμ, ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν, κατὰ γλώσσας αὐτῶν, ἐν ταῖς χώραις αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῶν.

32 Αὗται αἱ φυλαὶ υἱῶν Νῶε κατὰ γενέσεις αὐτῶν, κατὰ ἔθνη αὐτῶν· ἀπὸ τούτων διεσπάρησαν νῆσοι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν.

© Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

NOW... this above came from the

• Home
• Text ▼

About Septuagint.Bible​

Welcome to Septuagint.Bible. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and used by the early Church. The Septuagint is also called the translation of the seventy because tradition states that the Septuagint was translated by seventy. In academia, the Septuagint is often abbreviated as LXX (the Roman numberal for seventy) in honor of this tradition.

This site is a joint project between the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Hellenic Bible Society. The aim of Septuagint.Bible is to:

1. Make available the living Septuagint text as it is used in the public worship and private devotion in the Orthodox Christian Church worldwide.
2. Promote easy accessibility to the Septuagint
3. Publish a properly edited edition of the Septuagint for use in the Divine Service of the Orthodox Church

An important part of this effort entails the ongoing efforts of the Hellenic Bible Society to produce a properly corrected text that addresses many of the errant mistakes made through various editions over the years. This site will serve as an official clearinghouse of that Septuagint text. The Hellenic Bible Society, under the leadership of Dr. Michalis Chatzigiannis, has just published the definitive edition of the Septuagint book of Psalms.

Until such time as definitively edited texts are available, we will be providing the generally available text of the Septuagint.



© Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

SO YOU DONT LIKE THIS REFERENCE .... THEN CHECK OUT ALL OF THESE... AND then tell us why so many would have made
Solid Hardcopy books on such.

Below is from this link

original septuagint lxx in english at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Sorry. Could not post from the link as it is too long. If you want to see all out there click on it

Especially :

1. ELLOPOS net
   
   https://www.ellopos.net › elpenor › greek-texts › septuagint › default.asp
   

   Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1 - ELLOPOS​

   Read the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the Apostles and the Ancient Church. Search the Septuagint by book, chapter, or keyword, or browse the table of contents and the introduction.
2. Videos for original septuagint lxx in english

 

[Mr GLee]

Show me where the Septuagint said that. In other words, what makes them of the Septuagint?

Lees

Amen Thanks

I would think. It would have to be by their own private interpretation, as oral tradition of dying mankind a personal commentary, called a heresy, opinion a sect

When two or three "a family" gather under the hearing of the gospel the living word (the smallest denomination). He is there teaching comforting and brining to mind the previous things he has taught

Why would we seek the dead believers like Origen or Popes as if they were still here?

We have the same source of Christs faith as a labor of His love as it is written (sola scriptura) And are warned of those antichrists . . . . . another teaching authority. . . other than sola scriptura. He infallibly informs we do need a dying man to teach us.

Christ in us not a legion of dead man's bones

In that way. Not so much what we hear but how and by whom we can miraculously hear it and do it .

2 Peter 1:19-21We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts : Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God Spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Venerating dying mankind (fathers) Like Origen or Pope Formosa of the Cadaver trial, dug up dead bones and pronounced venerable judgement. Therefore rising above that which is written (sola scriptura) violating the law of interpretation. faith to faith (the unseen eternal things of Christ

1 Corithians 4:6-7And these things, brethren, I have in a figure (Parable)transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

In that we are not to add or subtract from the perfect sealed with seven seals till the last day under the Sun .

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, (Not flesh) according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.

I would think its the goal of Satan the king of lying signs to wonder, wonder, marvel after as if true Prophecy in order to focus on the dead as the god of the dead.

 

[Lees]

@Rella: concerning post #(52)

Sorry, I can't translate the Greek.

I believe in the opening post I said I don't understand how so many in Christianity hold to the so called 'Septuagint'. All you have given is a Greek translation that apparently you and others call the Septuagint.

Where was the translation taken from? The comment was given that it is based upon tradition. Based upon the 70 translators. Which means it is based upon the 'letter of Aristeas'. Which is proven to be fraudulent. And in fact, they should have said 72, as that was the number given.

Lees

 

[Hobie]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

It is nothing but what comes from another of the corrupted Alexandrian codices, take a look and see..

 

[Rella]

It is nothing but what comes from another of the corrupted Alexandrian codices, take a look and see..

Curiosity begs the following.

If the Septuagint lxx is so bad, and I will admit that the codices are certainly not without questionable influence, what do you use when you hit a roadblock and want to support it away from the actual bible?

 

[Lees]

Curiosity begs the following.

If the Septuagint lxx is so bad, and I will admit that the codices are certainly not without questionable influence, what do you use when you hit a roadblock and want to support it away from the actual bible?

Your question is strange to me.

What would be a 'roadblock' that needed support away from the actual Bible?

Would you go to support of questionable origin?

Lees

 

[Rella]

Your question is strange to me.

What would be a 'roadblock' that needed support away from the actual Bible?

Would you go to support of questionable origin?

Lees

Let me rephrase.... If someone presented their interpretation of say a scripture that you disagreed with, what other source would you go to to
find proof to back up your interpretation.

Septuagint is allegedly questionable. Even @Hobie said "It is nothing but what comes from another of the corrupted Alexandrian codices, take a look and see.."

My old go to was always "The Peshitta" until someone... ( not sure if here or where) cant remember who said that is questionable because there was no original to refer back to.

Then I started with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ironically they are not 100% with each other.

We dont have access to the original complete Ethiopian bible, just the current one they use.

Even the Torah has variations.

So what would you use if you were checking and double checking on how a particular scripture is in your bible of choice to shore up that
what you read is factual based on an earlier translation of the same scripture?

You ask " What would be a 'roadblock' that needed support away from the actual Bible?"

Okay. The one that bugs me the very most is why Jimmy's men in the KJV use one word that was not a common word for Christianity of the time because it is, by todays standards it IS use for a celebration of Christianity, but back then it was common pagan.... The word being Easter.
And not Passover.

So where would you look to find out why. And if it was used in any other translations.

Then lets use the way back machine to Genesis.


Are you aware that the numbering of the days in Genesis 1 are not always the same in older bibles.

We accept "the first day, " the second day" yada yada.

Peshitta says "day one", "day second" "day third" yada yada

Dead Sea Scrolls Genesis 1 from Scroll 4Q2 Genesisb "The first day" ," A Second day", A third day " yada yada
Now this connotes The is definitely the first day... but there is no time relationship to a second, or a third and so on because that
well could have been indicating time and space between as we do not know when A happened.

The Bereshit Torah Bereshit - Genesis Chapter 1 " one day. "," a second day"," a second day," yada yada

Every one of these suggest a slightly different understanding. What we accept suggests 144 literal hours, but the others suggest that there could have been time between the days.

Only when we get to chapter 2 does the wording for the seventh day seem as if it was one continuous week.

The Bereshit Torah says

2:1 Heaven and earth, and all their components, were [thus] completed.
2:2 With the seventh day, God finished all the work that He had done. He [thus]ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had been doing.
(NOTE: It seems that God was till working and on the seventh day, as soon as it was completed, He stopped)

2:3 God blessed the seventh day, and He declared it to be holy, for it was on this day that God ceased from all the work that He had been . creating [so that it would continue] to function.
(Yep. it was on the seventh day God ceased from working)

Now.....

IS IT NOT INTERESTING THAT KJV states.. Genesis 2:4 4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I know, I think I am correct that a generation is longer then 24 hours?

Look at what The Bereshit says Genesis 2:4 These are the chronicles of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day God completed earth and heaven. A chronicle is not a generation.

So how would you go about checking if the KJV was correct on Gen 2:4 (Which I personally hope they are) OR DO YOU BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT YUOU READ.... knowing that of all the current readily available bibles for sale that there is a variance in them... check out Bible Hub

 

[Mr GLee]

Let me rephrase.... If someone presented their interpretation of say a scripture that you disagreed with, what other source would you go to to
find proof to back up your interpretation.

Septuagint is allegedly questionable. Even @Hobie said "It is nothing but what comes from another of the corrupted Alexandrian codices, take a look and see.."

My old go to was always "The Peshitta" until someone... ( not sure if here or where) cant remember who said that is questionable because there was no original to refer back to.

Then I started with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ironically they are not 100% with each other.

We dont have access to the original complete Ethiopian bible, just the current one they use.

Even the Torah has variations.

So what would you use if you were checking and double checking on how a particular scripture is in your bible of choice to shore up that
what you read is factual based on an earlier translation of the same scripture?

You ask " What would be a 'roadblock' that needed support away from the actual Bible?"

Okay. The one that bugs me the very most is why Jimmy's men in the KJV use one word that was not a common word for Christianity of the time because it is, by todays standards it IS use for a celebration of Christianity, but back then it was common pagan.... The word being Easter.
And not Passover.

So where would you look to find out why. And if it was used in any other translations.

Then lets use the way back machine to Genesis.


Are you aware that the numbering of the days in Genesis 1 are not always the same in older bibles.

We accept "the first day, " the second day" yada yada.

Peshitta says "day one", "day second" "day third" yada yada

Dead Sea Scrolls Genesis 1 from Scroll 4Q2 Genesisb "The first day" ," A Second day", A third day " yada yada
Now this connotes The is definitely the first day... but there is no time relationship to a second, or a third and so on because that
well could have been indicating time and space between as we do not know when A happened.

The Bereshit Torah Bereshit - Genesis Chapter 1 " one day. "," a second day"," a second day," yada yada

Every one of these suggest a slightly different understanding. What we accept suggests 144 literal hours, but the others suggest that there could have been time between the days.

Only when we get to chapter 2 does the wording for the seventh day seem as if it was one continuous week.

The Bereshit Torah says

2:1 Heaven and earth, and all their components, were [thus] completed.
2:2 With the seventh day, God finished all the work that He had done. He [thus]ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had been doing.
(NOTE: It seems that God was till working and on the seventh day, as soon as it was completed, He stopped)

2:3 God blessed the seventh day, and He declared it to be holy, for it was on this day that God ceased from all the work that He had been . creating [so that it would continue] to function.
(Yep. it was on the seventh day God ceased from working)

Now.....

IS IT NOT INTERESTING THAT KJV states.. Genesis 2:4 4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I know, I think I am correct that a generation is longer then 24 hours?

Look at what The Bereshit says Genesis 2:4 These are the chronicles of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day God completed earth and heaven. A chronicle is not a generation.

So how would you go about checking if the KJV was correct on Gen 2:4 (Which I personally hope they are) OR DO YOU BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT YUOU READ.... knowing that of all the current readily available bibles for sale that there is a variance in them... check out Bible Hub

I would offer days and night = one day, one rotation. All things created needing day growth night rest..

Day and night. Two witnesses one purpose

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God whose very essence as Light and not that he can only create two sources to represent one . The moon the lesser glory. ( The Son of man Jesus) .The Sun to represent the source of the faithful understanding coming from of the Father

Three day and nights He revealed himself. Three nights a resting healing.

Three denoted the end of a matter throughout

Seeing pride in the heart of Satan day four he switched on the temporal timekeepers . Winding down to the last day

The word generation is longer then 24 hours it is a measure of a new beginning (generation) "body of individuals born about the same period"

In the new generation new creatures Like the first three days no need of the Sun and moon

Revelation21:23; And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Two beginnings were promised in the beginning

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations (Beginnings' plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they (plural) were created, in the day(singular) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[Lees]

@Rella: concerning post #(58)

The Septuagint is not 'allegedly' questionable. It doesn't exist. All you have are some Greek translations of the Hebrew. Thus the claim is made that this must be the 'Septuagint'. The only reason to believe there was ever a Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas'. A proven false document.

What is called the 'Septuagint' is nothing more than Origen's translation of the Old Testament into Greek, 200 years after Christ, found in his 'Hexapla' in the 5th column.

The translators are much more capeable than I in determining what a Greek or Hebrew text says. The reality of the Septuagint is about correct history, not translation. In other words a false history is created in order to accept a questionable translation.

If you want to discuss the most secure translation, you can hardly do better then the King James Version. Show me any version that had the input, and the checks and exercises, to secure a correct translation, as the King James employed.

Lees