The Myth of a pre-Christian LXX (Septuagint)

brandplucked

Member
Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

To see the whole article, go to the link below.

No LXX - Another King James Bible Believer

Here are the main points that are covered in the full article.

Short Version - 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 are several scholars like Jerome, John Gill and John Owen who affirm that already completed N.T. quotations were deliberately placed back into the Septuagint versions to make more of them line up. And finally, for examples of how God often "quotes" Himself, see the later part of the study.



The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did NOT quote from a Pre-Christian LXX. This from Wikipedia article on the so called Greek Septuagint -

"The Septuagint (/ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, erroniously assumed to be translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. The Septuagint was most probably translated by Origen in about 300 AD. There is at least one nearly complete text of the LXX, Codex Alexandrinus. Nearly complete texts of the Septuagint are also found in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.


Did Jesus use an LXX?
The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did not quote from a Pre-Christian LXX, but rather Old Testament quotes within the Greek New Testament were later added to Greek Old Testament LXX. What passes today as the so called Greek LXX are bascially compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which do not perfectly coincide. Many modern versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...." It must be noted that not all LXX versions read the same. It would be impossible to reconstruct what a pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed.

There are Four main points to this article. I will list them, and then expand the points in order.

#1. The Letter of Aristeas. Other sites to consult which debunk the idea of an widespread pre-Christian LXX version, and show the utter spuriousness of the Letter of Aristeas.

#2. The Bible itself contradicts the idea that God would approve of an authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that would then be used by the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the making of the New Testament.

A. The Levites were guardians of the O.T. Scriptures B. "Do not go back to Egypt" C. Jots and Tittles shall not pass away D. The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ.

#3.There is no solid proof of a Pre-Christian LXX.

What is generally referred to as the LXX today is nothing more than compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and these do not even agree with each other. Versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...." Not all LXX versions read the same. It is utterly impossible to reconstruct what an authoritative and widespread pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed.

#4. The LXX "quotations" and references in the Old Testament which differ significantly from the Hebrew Scriptures were taken directly from the already completed New Testament writings, and then transplanted back into the Greek O.T. translations in an effort to harmonize the different readings. This is the exact opposite view of the one held by many scholars and seminarians today.

Every New Testament "quote" can be explained by referring instead to the Hebrew texts and the manner in which God often "quotes" Himself by way of expansion, application, specificity, or explanation. Furthermore, there is not a scholar alive today who can prove otherwise.

Part Two will consist of An explanation of some of the alleged LXX readings.

Here again is the link to the full article on the so called Greek Septuagint.

No LXX - Another King James Bible Believer
 

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
the fact is, JESUS HIMSELF, as well as some of His disciples, quoted from some OT texta that were plainly NOT the Masoretic Texts used by the KJV & many other English translations. A clear example is found in Luke 4:16-21. Please compare what JESUS READ ALOUD in Vs. 18-19 & called "this Scripture" & compare it to Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 in the KJV.

Dr. Thomas Cassidy sez He was reading from some vorlage text. Now, we are assuming what He read from, being in a synagogue, was in Hebrew, but we don't know its SOURCE. And we also know JESUS called it THIS SCRIPTURE' thus placing God's stamp of authenticity upon it. And it closely matches the LXX reading of those verses.

Now, whether or not it proves the early existence of the LXX isn't as important that it PROVES the existence of other versions of at least some of the Scriptures, and that JESUS HIMSELF placed His stamp of approval upon at least one version that differed from that of the Masoretes.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What about Lion's feet , strong like Lion's feet or Pierced hands ?
KJV Today has a really good article on this one.

Here it is:

"They pierced my hands and my feet" or "Like a lion my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16?


A Messianic Psalm

Psalm 22:16 in the KJV says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Christians believe that the 22nd Psalm portrays the crucified Messiah, Jesus Christ. Verse 16 in most Christian translations says “they pierced my hands and my feet”, which points to the crucifixion. The contention is that “they pierced” is based on a Christian textual corruption. There are two textual variants underlying the portion translated “they pierced”: “כארי” which means “like a lion”, and “כארו” which arguably means “digging”. The difference is whether the final letter is a Yod (י) or a Vav (ו). Christians prefer “כארו” because “digging” could convey the idea of “piercing”. If the "כארי" reading were followed, the verse would read:

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion my hands and my feet."

כארו or כארי?

The Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV, the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, has "like a lion" in the text of Psalm 22:16(17). However, Ben Chayyim in the Massorah Finalis of the fourth volume of the Second Rabbinical Bible states: "In some correct Codices I have found כארו as the Kethiv [= textual reading] and כארי as the Keri [= the official marginal reading];" (Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896), p. 969). There are also some early witnesses to the reading “כארו”. A manuscript of Psalm 22 found at Nachal Hever (5/6Hev Col. XI, frag. 9) supposedly from the 1st century has “כארו” (Tim Hegg, Studies in the Biblical Text, "Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?"). The NIV 2010 footnote says "pierced" is the reading found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac". Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says “כארו” is the kethib, or marginal reading. So "כארו" is preserved as a minority reading in the Masoretic tradition. It has long been known that the LXX has “ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας” (they dug my hands and feet). The Vulgate also has “dig” (foderunt).


Psalm 22:16(17) in Daniel Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible of 1525 has "כארי"


Critics argue that even if the text were to read "כארו", there is no such word in Hebrew. The trilateral root of the verb “dig” is “כּרה”. It has been argued that there is no basis for the Aleph in "כארו" if it were a form of "כּרה". The counterargument has been that the form with the Aleph is an alternate spelling. Then again, even if "כארו" could mean “digging”, critics argue that it is a stretch to translate it as “piercing” because the usual word for “pierce” (“נקב” (Kings 18:21, Isaiah 36:6), “דּקר” (Zechariah 12:10)) is not used here.

"Like a lion" = "They pierced"

It is possible that the original Hebrew word was “כארו” (digging) and some Masoretes corrupted the text. However, "like a lion" is not a completely out-of-context reading. The Psalm uses an animal motif to refer to the perpetrators, referring to them as bulls (verse 12), dogs (verses 16, 20), unicorns (verse 21) and even lions elsewhere (verses 13, 21). In light of this, ardent supporters of "כארי" (like a lion) may never be convinced otherwise. The translation, "they pierced", however, can be justified even if "כארי" (like a lion) were the original reading.

Jewish scholars recognize that some liberties with the syntax and grammar must be taken to make the text of Psalm 22:16 make sense. There is no subject and verb in “like a lion my hands and my feet.” Most scholars agree that the implied subject is “they”, which refers to the “assembly of the wicked”. Implied verbs that have been suggested are:

  • “they bite like a lion my hands and my feet” (Aramaic Targum);
  • “they disfigured my hands and feet” (Aquila I)
  • “they have bound my hands and feet” (Aquila II)
  • “like lions (they maul) my hands and my feet” (Rashi)

According to Christian D. Ginsburg, the Aramaic Targum rendered the phrase, "Like a lion they tore my hands and my feet" (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896) (p. 972)).


It is not right to charge the KJV of erroneously supplying "they" and a verb on the basis of “כארי” because Jewish translations do the same. The only basis for any criticism is the choice of the verb as “pierced” and the absence of the English equivalent of the words, “like a lion”.


"Pierced"

The irregular use of "כארי" suggests that an idiom or figurative meaning is signified. With respect to why the verb should be “pierced,” one possible reason is that a lion's bite results in piercing the prey with the fangs. Hebrew scholar Allen P. Ross, author of Introducing Biblical Hebrew and Grammar, says regarding Psalm 22:16, "The image in the psalmist's mind was probably of dogs nipping at the hands and feet and puncturing them." (Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 1(1-41) (Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications), p. 524). Even the Aramaic Targum identifies the implied verb as "bite" so the logical extension may be "pierce". Numbers 23:24 further supports this interpretation that a lion's attack results in one being pierced. It says:

  • KJV: "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain."
  • Hebrew: "הן־עם כלביא יקום וכארי יתנשׂא לא ישׁכב עד־יאכל טרף ודם־חללים ישׁתה׃"
  • YLT: "Lo, the people as a lioness riseth, And as a lion he lifteth himself up, He lieth not down till he eateth prey, And blood of pierced ones doth drink.'"
The word that is translated "the slain" in the KJV is the Hebrew word "חללים" which means, "slain, fatally wounded, pierced" (Brown–Driver–Briggs). Young's Literal Translation has preferred to translate "חללים" as "pierced ones" at Numbers 23:24. Several translations render חלל in its verb form as "pierced" in Isaiah 53:5, which is another Messianic prophecy:

  • NIV: "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
  • NLT: "But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed."
  • ESV (2011): "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed."
  • NASB: "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed."
Going back to Numbers 23:24, the imagery is one of a lion piercing and eating its prey. Thus there is biblical precedent for interpreting being "like a lion" as to "pierce" a victim. "Pierced" is as good an interpretation of the verb as anything else that has been suggested. Interestingly, the length and shape of the fangs of a lion may closely resemble the nails of crucifixion.

"Like a lion" piercing its prey with fangs?1
"They pierced like a lion"

If the verb should be "pierce" and the phrase should be taken to mean "to pierce like a lion", the remaining question is whether it is acceptable not to carry over the words “like a lion” into English. In translating an idiom that involves animal imagery, it is sometimes sufficient to translate the meaning of the idiom without referring to the animal in the receptor tongue. For example, “Let us pig out!” can be translated into another language as “Let us eat excessively!” There may not be a need to render it “Let us eat excessively like a pig”. The person saying, “Let us pig out” is probably not even imagining a pig. “Pig out” is simply an idiom that means “eat excessively.” Also, “stop horsing around!” can be translated into another language as “Stop engaging in rough play!” Again, it is not necessary to translate it as “Stop engaging in rough play like a horse!” Including “like a horse” could be confusing if the culture of the receptor language has no notion that a horse is associated with rough play. Likewise, “like a lion” at Psalm 22:16 could have been understood idiomatically as "pierced".

Source:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What about the missing verse in Masoretic in Psalm 145 which is in Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX?

I believe I said before that the LXX's added verse in Psalms 145 is a corruption in the text because it says that God is gracious in all his ways. We know that such a statement is technically not true because we know God is also a God of judgment, too. For the Bible also talks about how God executed judgment and wrath upon upon evil nations in the Old Testament. Some today believe the OT talks about a different God; For they do not believe God can be violent. But it is the same God we worship. The LXX addition in Psalms 145 fits perfectly with the thinking of people who think God is only loving all the time (without Him having a side to Him that includes war and justice).
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Another one is the name is mistaken there , it should say Jeshua not Jesus
I reallty appricate this translation issue with changing Jeshua to Jesus because we know the Jesus name in Hebrew would mean Jeshua , not YAHAWASHI or something like that used by some cults today . But still it is translation mistake .

42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47 But Solomon built him an house.

48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

It's only a mistake if it is perceived that way by a person's limited knowledge with them drawing the wrong conclusion.

Acts of the Apostles 7:45 is talking about Jesus Christ.
How so?
Well, Joshua encountered a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus in Joshua 2:13-15 (under the title of the "Captain of the LORD'S host"). In Joshua 6:2-5, the Lord (the same person Joshua was just speaking to in the previous chapter) gives Joshua the battle plan to take down Jericho.

Now, what happens next shows us that Joshua did not take up the Ark into marching around Jericho for days (which eventually led to their victory over Jericho). The priests actually took up the Ark of the Covenant and not Joshua. But what is really interesting is that the Lord was with them in this march.

Let's read it.

6 "And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD.
7 And he said unto the people, Pass on, and compass the city, and let him that is armed pass on before the ark of the LORD.
8 And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them."

Okay. Three things here.

#1. Joshua told the priests to take up the ark of the covenant.
#2. The 7 priests with the trumpets (and not the Ark) passed on before the Lord.
#3. The ark of the covenant followed the Lord while 7 priests blowing trumpets were marching on ahead of him.

The Lord here is Jesus.
Jesus was with them!

44 "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in [the tabernacle] with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles [beginning at Jericho], whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;"
(Acts of the Apostles 7:44-45).
(Note: words in brackets in blue above are my commentary to the text).

Jesus was there! They brought in the tabernacle with the Lord (or Jesus). For Joshua 6:8 says that the priests with the trumpets had passed on before the Lord!!!
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: 8484838
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

To see the whole article, go to the link below.

No LXX - Another King James Bible Believer

Here are the main points that are covered in the full article.

Short Version - 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 are several scholars like Jerome, John Gill and John Owen who affirm that already completed N.T. quotations were deliberately placed back into the Septuagint versions to make more of them line up. And finally, for examples of how God often "quotes" Himself, see the later part of the study.



The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did NOT quote from a Pre-Christian LXX. This from Wikipedia article on the so called Greek Septuagint -

"The Septuagint (/ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, erroniously assumed to be translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. The Septuagint was most probably translated by Origen in about 300 AD. There is at least one nearly complete text of the LXX, Codex Alexandrinus. Nearly complete texts of the Septuagint are also found in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.


Did Jesus use an LXX?
The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did not quote from a Pre-Christian LXX, but rather Old Testament quotes within the Greek New Testament were later added to Greek Old Testament LXX. What passes today as the so called Greek LXX are bascially compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which do not perfectly coincide. Many modern versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...." It must be noted that not all LXX versions read the same. It would be impossible to reconstruct what a pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed.

There are Four main points to this article. I will list them, and then expand the points in order.

#1. The Letter of Aristeas. Other sites to consult which debunk the idea of an widespread pre-Christian LXX version, and show the utter spuriousness of the Letter of Aristeas.

#2. The Bible itself contradicts the idea that God would approve of an authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that would then be used by the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the making of the New Testament.

A. The Levites were guardians of the O.T. Scriptures B. "Do not go back to Egypt" C. Jots and Tittles shall not pass away D. The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ.

#3.There is no solid proof of a Pre-Christian LXX.

What is generally referred to as the LXX today is nothing more than compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and these do not even agree with each other. Versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...." Not all LXX versions read the same. It is utterly impossible to reconstruct what an authoritative and widespread pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed.

#4. The LXX "quotations" and references in the Old Testament which differ significantly from the Hebrew Scriptures were taken directly from the already completed New Testament writings, and then transplanted back into the Greek O.T. translations in an effort to harmonize the different readings. This is the exact opposite view of the one held by many scholars and seminarians today.

Every New Testament "quote" can be explained by referring instead to the Hebrew texts and the manner in which God often "quotes" Himself by way of expansion, application, specificity, or explanation. Furthermore, there is not a scholar alive today who can prove otherwise.

Part Two will consist of An explanation of some of the alleged LXX readings.

Here again is the link to the full article on the so called Greek Septuagint.

No LXX - Another King James Bible Believer

I just recently watched a lecture on this topic, where Dr. Peter Williams argued in favor of the Septuagint and then explained why he didn't believe in it while having a copy of it on the podium:

 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Another poster on another forum had pointed out a contradiction in the genealogy of Genesis 5 involving the LXX. Seeing I am not allowed to quote other forums, you will have to dig and find that one yourself.

However, that is just small potatoes here.
I would say the major problems (or what takes the cake) against the LXX are:

#1. Jesus talks about jots and tittles (Which suggests that He is referring to the Scriptures as being written in Hebrew and not Greek).
#2. Jesus refers to the books of the Holy Scriptures (Which the LXX is not even divided into separate books at all - unlike the Masoretic Hebrew text).
#3. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chronicles 16:4).
#4. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."
#5. Glaringly obvious neatly fit Messianic prophecies that looked like they were copied from the NT and written in after the fact (Especially in Psalms 22).
#6. The LXX is referenced in corrupt Modern Translations (Putting them into the same category of corruption).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just LOL at having more faith in The Masoretic Text that came a 1,000 years after Christ from unbelieving Hebrews who even said themselves that the text had been altered.

Just LOL

Right. So when Jesus talks about jots and tittles, you think that is in reference to the LXX? Are you unaware that jots and tittles are a Hebrew form of writing?

How about the book divisions? Jesus references the different books of the Holy Scriptures. The Masoretic Hebrew text had book divisions. The LXX did not have separations like this. So what of that? Also, only those of the tribe of Levi were permitted to write the Scriptures, as well. What of that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 28, 2017
3,779
2,856
Arizona
✟529,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Right. So when Jesus talks about jots and tittles, you think that is in reference to the LXX? Are you unaware that jots and tittles are a Hebrew form of writing?

How about the book divisions? Jesus references the different books of the Holy Scriptures. The Masoretic Hebrew text had book divisions. The LXX did not have separations like this. So what of that? Also, only those of the tribe of Levi were permitted to write the Scriptures, as well. What of that?

The Hebrew Text was altered After Jesus Christ. Even Justin Martyr talked about unbelieving Hebrews changing The Scriptures. I can’t remember exactly where though.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Hebrew Text was altered After Jesus Christ. Even Justin Martyr talked about unbelieving Hebrews changing The Scriptures. I can’t remember exactly where though.

This is still a problem because Genesis 5 genealogy is flawed in the LXX and
in the LXX's Douay-Rheims: The book of Daniel contains:

1. The Prayer of Azariah or Song of the Three Holy Children

2. The stories of Susannah and the Elders

3. Bel and the Dragon​

The LXX's Douay-Rheims also added six chapters (107 verses) to the book of Esther.

You can check out the extra chapters in Esther here:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/19001.htm

In addition, the Septuagint version of the Book of Job is about one-sixth shorter than the Masoretic or Hebrew text, while the Book of Jeremiah lacks about one-eighth of the material.

Source:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_septuagint.html#Sept-06
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 28, 2017
3,779
2,856
Arizona
✟529,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is still a problem because Genesis 5 genealogy is flawed in the LXX and
in the LXX's Douay-Rheims: The book of Daniel contains:

1. The Prayer of Azariah or Song of the Three Holy Children

2. The stories of Susannah and the Elders

3. Bel and the Dragon​

The LXX's Douay-Rheims also added six chapters (107 verses) to the book of Esther.

You can check out the extra chapters in Esther here:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/19001.htm

In addition, the Septuagint version of the Book of Job is about one-sixth shorter than the Masoretic or Hebrew text, while the Book of Jeremiah lacks about one-eighth of the material.

Source:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_septuagint.html#Sept-06


I understand.

The truth is I think that we need Both. I’m convinced that evil people have altered Every Version of The Scriptures in different ways and for different agendas.
 
Upvote 0

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's only a mistake if it is perceived that way by a person's limited knowledge with them drawing the wrong conclusion.

Acts of the Apostles 7:45 is talking about Jesus Christ.
How so?
Well, Joshua encountered a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus in Joshua 2:13-15 (under the title of the "Captain of the LORD'S host"). In Joshua 6:2-5, the Lord (the same person Joshua was just speaking to in the previous chapter) gives Joshua the battle plan to take down Jericho.

Now, what happens next shows us that Joshua did not take up the Ark into marching around Jericho for days (which eventually led to their victory over Jericho). The priests actually took up the Ark of the Covenant and not Joshua. But what is really interesting is that the Lord was with them in this march.

Let's read it.

6 "And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD.
7 And he said unto the people, Pass on, and compass the city, and let him that is armed pass on before the ark of the LORD.
8 And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them."

Okay. Three things here.

#1. Joshua told the priests to take up the ark of the covenant.
#2. The 7 priests with the trumpets (and not the Ark) passed on before the Lord.
#3. The ark of the covenant followed the Lord while 7 priests blowing trumpets were marching on ahead of him.

The Lord here is Jesus.
Jesus was with them!

44 "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in [the tabernacle] with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles [beginning at Jericho], whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;"
(Acts of the Apostles 7:44-45).
(Note: words in brackets in blue above are my commentary to the text).

Jesus was there! They brought in the tabernacle with the Lord (or Jesus). For Joshua 6:8 says that the priests with the trumpets had passed on before the Lord!!!

Yes Jesus was with them no dubt , but that vers was speaking about Jeshua . Thing is Jeshua inherit the land when Jesus did not untill he overcome Satan on cross so you cannot mix these two together .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I believe I said before that the LXX's added verse in Psalms 145 is a corruption in the text because it says that God is gracious in all his ways. We know that such a statement is technically not true because we know God is also a God of judgment, too.

You are now giving your opinion based on your assumptions for this one , we have two witnesses of such vers , LXX and dead sea Scrolls .

Being gracious in all his things is not exclusive to being just God

Psalm 103:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.

8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
 
Upvote 0

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
KJV Today has a really good article on this one.

Here it is:

"They pierced my hands and my feet" or "Like a lion my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16?


A Messianic Psalm

Psalm 22:16 in the KJV says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Christians believe that the 22nd Psalm portrays the crucified Messiah, Jesus Christ. Verse 16 in most Christian translations says “they pierced my hands and my feet”, which points to the crucifixion. The contention is that “they pierced” is based on a Christian textual corruption. There are two textual variants underlying the portion translated “they pierced”: “כארי” which means “like a lion”, and “כארו” which arguably means “digging”. The difference is whether the final letter is a Yod (י) or a Vav (ו). Christians prefer “כארו” because “digging” could convey the idea of “piercing”. If the "כארי" reading were followed, the verse would read:

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion my hands and my feet."

כארו or כארי?

The Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV, the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, has "like a lion" in the text of Psalm 22:16(17). However, Ben Chayyim in the Massorah Finalis of the fourth volume of the Second Rabbinical Bible states: "In some correct Codices I have found כארו as the Kethiv [= textual reading] and כארי as the Keri [= the official marginal reading];" (Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896), p. 969). There are also some early witnesses to the reading “כארו”. A manuscript of Psalm 22 found at Nachal Hever (5/6Hev Col. XI, frag. 9) supposedly from the 1st century has “כארו” (Tim Hegg, Studies in the Biblical Text, "Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?"). The NIV 2010 footnote says "pierced" is the reading found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac". Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says “כארו” is the kethib, or marginal reading. So "כארו" is preserved as a minority reading in the Masoretic tradition. It has long been known that the LXX has “ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας” (they dug my hands and feet). The Vulgate also has “dig” (foderunt).


Psalm 22:16(17) in Daniel Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible of 1525 has "כארי"


Critics argue that even if the text were to read "כארו", there is no such word in Hebrew. The trilateral root of the verb “dig” is “כּרה”. It has been argued that there is no basis for the Aleph in "כארו" if it were a form of "כּרה". The counterargument has been that the form with the Aleph is an alternate spelling. Then again, even if "כארו" could mean “digging”, critics argue that it is a stretch to translate it as “piercing” because the usual word for “pierce” (“נקב” (Kings 18:21, Isaiah 36:6), “דּקר” (Zechariah 12:10)) is not used here.

"Like a lion" = "They pierced"

It is possible that the original Hebrew word was “כארו” (digging) and some Masoretes corrupted the text. However, "like a lion" is not a completely out-of-context reading. The Psalm uses an animal motif to refer to the perpetrators, referring to them as bulls (verse 12), dogs (verses 16, 20), unicorns (verse 21) and even lions elsewhere (verses 13, 21). In light of this, ardent supporters of "כארי" (like a lion) may never be convinced otherwise. The translation, "they pierced", however, can be justified even if "כארי" (like a lion) were the original reading.

Jewish scholars recognize that some liberties with the syntax and grammar must be taken to make the text of Psalm 22:16 make sense. There is no subject and verb in “like a lion my hands and my feet.” Most scholars agree that the implied subject is “they”, which refers to the “assembly of the wicked”. Implied verbs that have been suggested are:

  • “they bite like a lion my hands and my feet” (Aramaic Targum);
  • “they disfigured my hands and feet” (Aquila I)
  • “they have bound my hands and feet” (Aquila II)
  • “like lions (they maul) my hands and my feet” (Rashi)

According to Christian D. Ginsburg, the Aramaic Targum rendered the phrase, "Like a lion they tore my hands and my feet" (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896) (p. 972)).


It is not right to charge the KJV of erroneously supplying "they" and a verb on the basis of “כארי” because Jewish translations do the same. The only basis for any criticism is the choice of the verb as “pierced” and the absence of the English equivalent of the words, “like a lion”.


"Pierced"

The irregular use of "כארי" suggests that an idiom or figurative meaning is signified. With respect to why the verb should be “pierced,” one possible reason is that a lion's bite results in piercing the prey with the fangs. Hebrew scholar Allen P. Ross, author of Introducing Biblical Hebrew and Grammar, says regarding Psalm 22:16, "The image in the psalmist's mind was probably of dogs nipping at the hands and feet and puncturing them." (Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 1(1-41) (Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications), p. 524). Even the Aramaic Targum identifies the implied verb as "bite" so the logical extension may be "pierce". Numbers 23:24 further supports this interpretation that a lion's attack results in one being pierced. It says:

  • KJV: "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain."
  • Hebrew: "הן־עם כלביא יקום וכארי יתנשׂא לא ישׁכב עד־יאכל טרף ודם־חללים ישׁתה׃"
  • YLT: "Lo, the people as a lioness riseth, And as a lion he lifteth himself up, He lieth not down till he eateth prey, And blood of pierced ones doth drink.'"
The word that is translated "the slain" in the KJV is the Hebrew word "חללים" which means, "slain, fatally wounded, pierced" (Brown–Driver–Briggs). Young's Literal Translation has preferred to translate "חללים" as "pierced ones" at Numbers 23:24. Several translations render חלל in its verb form as "pierced" in Isaiah 53:5, which is another Messianic prophecy:

  • NIV: "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
  • NLT: "But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed."
  • ESV (2011): "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed."
  • NASB: "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed."
Going back to Numbers 23:24, the imagery is one of a lion piercing and eating its prey. Thus there is biblical precedent for interpreting being "like a lion" as to "pierce" a victim. "Pierced" is as good an interpretation of the verb as anything else that has been suggested. Interestingly, the length and shape of the fangs of a lion may closely resemble the nails of crucifixion.

"Like a lion" piercing its prey with fangs?1
"They pierced like a lion"

If the verb should be "pierce" and the phrase should be taken to mean "to pierce like a lion", the remaining question is whether it is acceptable not to carry over the words “like a lion” into English. In translating an idiom that involves animal imagery, it is sometimes sufficient to translate the meaning of the idiom without referring to the animal in the receptor tongue. For example, “Let us pig out!” can be translated into another language as “Let us eat excessively!” There may not be a need to render it “Let us eat excessively like a pig”. The person saying, “Let us pig out” is probably not even imagining a pig. “Pig out” is simply an idiom that means “eat excessively.” Also, “stop horsing around!” can be translated into another language as “Stop engaging in rough play!” Again, it is not necessary to translate it as “Stop engaging in rough play like a horse!” Including “like a horse” could be confusing if the culture of the receptor language has no notion that a horse is associated with rough play. Likewise, “like a lion” at Psalm 22:16 could have been understood idiomatically as "pierced".

Source:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216


More reasonable is that it was just copiest error , literally the difference of making one line longer than it was made . This vers confirms that KJV used not only Masoretic text for thier translation but based it on LXX aswell making them both valid to use .


Another one is that KJV is missing " and restoring the sight to the blind " part from Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18 while in LXX it does not . Luke himself quotes LXX over Masoretic there .
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes Jesus was with them no dubt , but that vers was speaking about Jeshua . Thing is Jeshua inherit the land when Jesus did not untill he overcome Satan on cross so you cannot mix these two together .

No. It says,

“Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;” (Acts of the Apostles 7:45) (KJV).

Who brought in the tabernacle into the possession of the Gentiles with the city of Jericho? The answer is Jesus because He was marching with them and the battle belonged to the Lord and not because of Joshua. Joshua also merely following the plans laid out by Jesus, as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
More reasonable is that it was just copiest error , literally the difference of making one line longer than it was made . This vers confirms that KJV used not only Masoretic text for thier translation but based it on LXX aswell making them both valid to use .


Another one is that KJV is missing " and restoring the sight to the blind " part from Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18 while in LXX it does not . Luke himself quotes LXX over Masoretic there .

No. The LXX is an obvious fraud for many reasons. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. David was talking about his own personal struggles and he was not exactly thinking of referencing the Messiah. The LXX messianic OT prophecies are too perfect making it look like they were inserted after the NT was finished.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No. The LXX is an obvious fraud for many reasons. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. David was talking about his own personal struggles and he was not exactly thinking of referencing the Messiah. The LXX messianic OT prophecies are too perfect making it look like they were inserted after the NT was finished.

But they are quoted by NT word for word of KJV . You just don't like it admit it it has nothing to do with it being true or false .

The problem is not that KJV uses different texts than LXX but that KJV quotes LXX rather than different text 80% of the time and about 20% not . Why is this not following the other texts all the time if LXX is corrupted ?
 
Upvote 0