How do we know . . . .

[Mathetes the kerux]

I didn't say he needed it. I said the Apostles did.

Forgive me...

Not according to the Emmaus account . . . nor the Lukan post resurrection account . . .

The apostles used the LXX for the simple and SAME reason why most if us here use english . . . IT WAS THE COMMON TRANSLATION, not that it was considered divinely inspired . . . NO ONE SEES THE SEVENTY OF THE LXX (and the others who translated) AS INSPIRED SPOKESMEN OF GOD . . . no one. It was cheap and easy to use and everybody understood it . . . the reason for the usage is not some SUPERNATURAL RENDERING OF THE TEXTS . . . it is rather mundane and functional.

BIG DEAL.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'm sorry, the assertion was made that Mary taught Jesus scriptures. that he knew them because of her.

I see no reason to believe this.

Interesting...

Did Jesus have full knowledge as Yehwah or was Jesus fully human with limited knowledge like men?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Interesting...

Did Jesus have full knowledge as Yehwah or was Jesus fully human with limited knowledge like men?

good question.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Interesting...

Did Jesus have full knowledge as Yehwah or was Jesus fully human with limited knowledge like men?

The answer is BOTH.

(hah . . . ;0) )

He had full knowledge of everything as God incarnate . . . but per Phil 2 chose not to use these in their fullness for the sake of His glory in the redemption of men . . . so He willingly chose limitation and dependance.

Much like a man playing with his kids chosing one arm to be bound behind his back . . . limitation for the sake of purpose.

Back to the OP . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Not according to the Emmaus account . . . nor the Lukan post resurrection account . . .

The apostles used the LXX for the simple and SAME reason why most if us here use english . . . IT WAS THE COMMON TRANSLATION, not that it was considered divinely inspired . . . NO ONE SEES THE SEVENTY OF THE LXX (and the others who translated) AS INSPIRED SPOKESMEN OF GOD . . . no one. It was cheap and easy to use and everybody understood it . . . the reason for the usage is not some SUPERNATURAL RENDERING OF THE TEXTS . . . it is rather mundane and functional.

BIG DEAL.

The Jews did.

When the Seventy (72) completed their work, they realized that all of them agreed. They called it a miracle, inspired of God, and called it canon. This was after 400 years of Babylonian repression and slavery.

When did they stop calling it canon? Was it not after Christ?

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

*OrthodoxyUSA unsubscribes*

Forgive me...

*OrthodoxyUSA resubscribes*

welcome back.

 

[Thekla]

so, are the LXX passages quoted in the NT now considered inspired ?

or should they be replaced with the Masoretic when variant ...

 

[Philothei]

How we would have to re-ratify the whole NT cannon... it is not possible.... lol... I wonder how does it feel be up against the wall... for a change?

As per claims of "mandaine and practical" I am not interested in opinions but hard facts thus your argument is very very weak... Lots of books in the OT are "practical" that means they were not inspired?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Jews did.

When the Seventy (72) completed their work, they realized that all of them agreed. They called it a miracle, inspired of God, and called it canon. This was after 400 years of Babylonian repression and slavery.

When did they stop calling it canon? Was it not after Christ?

Forgive me...

That is a rumor . . . and even if it IS true . . . it only applies to the first FIVE BOOKS . . . for that is what was finished by them . . . not the whole translation.

400 years? What are you talking about? The Babylonian deportation happened initially in 605 bc and officially ALL of Jerusalem was encompassed in 586 and they came back in approx 537 . . . that is seventy years brother. Then the Persians took over . . . and then the Greeks and eventually the Romans.
The dating of the LXX for its FIRST translation commitee is about 200 BC . . . so your a bit off.

And again . . . aside from Philo and Josephus . . . I don't know of any who considered the translation as divinely inspired in the same way as the original Hebrew.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

so, are the LXX passages quoted in the NT now considered inspired ?

or should they be replaced with the Masoretic when variant ...

The quotations are inspired quotations . . . Like Paul using a Greek poet . . . but the source of the quote is not inspired . . . hence the Greek poet is speaking truth . . . but not carried along by the Spirit as the authors of Scripture . . . PAUL is however being inspired to USE the quote.

I don't think the NT quotes should be replaced with Maso quotes.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

How we would have to re-ratify the whole NT cannon... it is not possible.... lol... I wonder how does it feel be up against the wall... for a change?

As per claims of "mandaine and practical" I am not interested in opinions but hard facts thus your argument is very very weak... Lots of books in the OT are "practical" that means they were not inspired?

Uh ok. So the philosophy behind the reason for the document means little to you . . . ok?

Fact: The LXX was translated FIRST in the first five books of the OT . . . and then picked up later SEVERAL times BY DIFFERENT MEN THAN THE FIRST . . . and translated with DIFFERENT translation strategies and convictions until the whole scope was done over 200 years (give or take).

FACT: the first five books are WELL DONE . . . and the quality tapers off from here to BAD in the latter portions of the text.

FACT: It was done, not because some prophet of God came along and spoke for the people ordaining this text (laying some claim to divine inspiration), BUT BECAUSE the whole of the Jewish world was becoming HELLENIZED and people couldn't read and understand Hebrew anymore, so any semblance of religious affinity needed to be maintained . . . oila . . . the decree of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309-246 CE/BC), A PAGAN incestuous chap, for the furtherance of his library . . . or (if the King account is taken as non-historical . . . but there is really no reason not to), the decree by someone to conscript this task.

These are the well attested to FACTS (save for the possible dispute of the King's conscription).

So while many books in the OT are practical . . . THEY ARE DONE UNDER THE PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION OF THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT . . . and are thereby considered the VERY WORDS OF GOD. The philosophical assumption underlying the LXX is NOT THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT . . . but IS the MUNDANE goal of common access to that which IS GIVEN BY THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT. Ergo, the translation is not inspired in the same way as the ORIGINAL HEBREW/ARAMAIC of the first writ of the OT.

 

[Thekla]

The quotations are inspired quotations . . . Like Paul using a Greek poet . . . but the source of the quote is not inspired . . . hence the Greek poet is speaking truth . . . but not carried along by the Spirit as the authors of Scripture . . . PAUL is however being inspired to USE the quote.

I don't think the NT quotes should be replaced with Maso quotes.

so, where a different sense is conveyed by the LXX passage, should we introduce the LXX variant into the Masoretic OT text ?

 

[Rick Otto]

The answer is BOTH.

(hah . . . ;0) )

He had full knowledge of everything as God incarnate . . . but per Phil 2 chose not to use these in their fullness for the sake of His glory in the redemption of men . . . so He willingly chose limitation and dependance.

Much like a man playing with his kids chosing one arm to be bound behind his back . . . limitation for the sake of purpose.

Back to the OP . . .

That's right, Matt The K!
Another good analogy is that God is like a stand-up comedian working with a realy slow audience.

 

[Rick Otto]

Uh ok. So the philosophy behind the reason for the document means little to you . . . ok?

Fact: The LXX was translated FIRST in the first five books of the OT . . . and then picked up later SEVERAL times BY DIFFERENT MEN THAN THE FIRST . . . and translated with DIFFERENT translation strategies and convictions until the whole scope was done over 200 years (give or take).

FACT: the first five books are WELL DONE . . . and the quality tapers off from here to BAD in the latter portions of the text.

FACT: It was done, not because some prophet of God came along and spoke for the people ordaining this text (laying some claim to divine inspiration), BUT BECAUSE the whole of the Jewish world was becoming HELLENIZED and people couldn't read and understand Hebrew anymore, so any semblance of religious affinity needed to be maintained . . . oila . . . the decree of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309-246 CE/BC), A PAGAN incestuous chap, for the furtherance of his library . . . or (if the King account is taken as non-historical . . . but there is really no reason not to), the decree by someone to conscript this task.

These are the well attested to FACTS (save for the possible dispute of the King's conscription).

So while many books in the OT are practical . . . THEY ARE DONE UNDER THE PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION OF THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT . . . and are thereby considered the VERY WORDS OF GOD. The philosophical assumption underlying the LXX is NOT THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT . . . but IS the MUNDANE goal of common access to that which IS GIVEN BY THE DIRECT INSPIRATION OF GOD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT. Ergo, the translation is not inspired in the same way as the ORIGINAL HEBREW/ARAMAIC of the first writ of the OT.

"Smashing Idols" is the name of Matt's Alternative Christian Rock band.
Awesome articulation on that chord progression, Mr. M.
That is a post for the archives, brother!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

so, where a different sense is conveyed by the LXX passage, should we introduce the LXX variant into the Masoretic OT text ?

No . . . I think we should see the usage in view as that of the way that prophecy works.

The Maso is PROBABLY closer to the original given by the Spirit through the OT authors . . . BUT the LXX variant used by the NT author, assuming the soveriegnty of God, is a viable understanding of the same text in a NT light.

For instance, Is and the prophecy of the Virgin concieving . . . that text was fulfilled nearly immediately in the lifetime of the prophet . . . it was a promise to the king of the time and how he would know God's faithfulness . . . but given the nature of prophecy, we see in the NT a secondary (and probably the primary understanding as the importance of Messiah is greater than that of the OT king . . . much like marriage pointing to what is greater in the union of Christ and the church . . . the whole types and shadows issue) fulfillment in Christ. So the OT text has a greater purpose in its giving than just the initial prophetic announcement. Likewise, this same fluidity can be reconciled with the LXX and the Maso where the LXX is quoted in the NT and the Maso rendition is divergent than the NT usage. Both become the greater meaning of the text in the scope of God's sovereignty and desire to leave a witness for His people.

But this cannot be done with ALL of the LXX . . . like it cannot be done for the whole of pagan prophet quoted by Paul on the Areopagus, but it may be done with that which IS quoted

But it can be done for all of the Maso. . . . but let it be known . . . THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE MASO AND THE LXX IS NOT EVEN MUCH TO BE MADE OF. They agree mostly.

The reason this topic was even broached was because of canonicity and is really a REALLY LONG RABBIT trail off of the conversation of traditional authority and scriptural authority off of how to determine what is the true Gospel (if my mem serves me correct). The LXX has little bearance upon the OP. Tangents . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

"Smashing Idols" is the name of Matt's Alternative Christian Rock band.
Awesome articulation on that chord progression, Mr. M.
That is a post for the archives, brother!

Actually it is Thousand Foot Krutch!

But thanks . . .

 

[racer]

That's right, Matt The K!
Another good analogy is that God is like a stand-up comedian working with a realy slow audience.

I agree, God has to have a sense of humor . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No . . . I think we should see the usage in view as that of the way that prophecy works.

The Maso is PROBABLY closer to the original given by the Spirit through the OT authors . . . BUT the LXX variant used by the NT author, assuming the soveriegnty of God, is a viable understanding of the same text in a NT light.

For instance, Is and the prophecy of the Virgin concieving . . . that text was fulfilled nearly immediately in the lifetime of the prophet . . . it was a promise to the king of the time and how he would know God's faithfulness . . . but given the nature of prophecy, we see in the NT a secondary (and probably the primary understanding as the importance of Messiah is greater than that of the OT king . . . much like marriage pointing to what is greater in the union of Christ and the church . . . the whole types and shadows issue) fulfillment in Christ. So the OT text has a greater purpose in its giving than just the initial prophetic announcement. Likewise, this same fluidity can be reconciled with the LXX and the Maso where the LXX is quoted in the NT and the Maso rendition is divergent than the NT usage. Both become the greater meaning of the text in the scope of God's sovereignty and desire to leave a witness for His people.

But this cannot be done with ALL of the LXX . . . like it cannot be done for the whole of pagan prophet quoted by Paul on the Areopagus, but it may be done with that which IS quoted

But it can be done for all of the Maso. . . . but let it be known . . . THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE MASO AND THE LXX IS NOT EVEN MUCH TO BE MADE OF. They agree mostly.

The reason this topic was even broached was because of canonicity and is really a REALLY LONG RABBIT trail off of the conversation of traditional authority and scriptural authority off of how to determine what is the true Gospel (if my mem serves me correct). The LXX has little bearance upon the OP. Tangents . . .

PROBABLY? according to who.

Not according to The Church.

Forgive me...

 

[Philothei]

Ergo, the translation is not inspired in the same way as the ORIGINAL HEBREW/ARAMAIC of the first writ of the OT.



Thus translating the NT into English is not inspired? because it is a translation??? nice...

 

[racer]

continued from previous post...

[SIZE=-1]By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Behold, the virgin shall be with child[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will put my trust in him[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It is the remnant that shall be saved[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]On him shall the Gentiles hope[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]When I shall take away their sins[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will destroy the wisdom of the wise[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]All flesh shall see the salvation of God[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The voice of one crying in the wilderness[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]All flesh is as grass[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Who hath known the mind of the Lord? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And in his name shall the Gentiles hope[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A people for God's own possession[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To me every knee shall bow[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For the name of God is blasphemed [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]among the Gentiles because of you[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Who has believed our report?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]He was led as a sheep to the slaughter[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Neither was guile found in his mouth[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rejoice thou barren that bearest not[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The holy and sure blessings of David[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To set at liberty them that are bruised[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Spirit of the Lord is upon me[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I was found of them that sought me not[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A disobedient and gainsaying people[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Behold, the days come[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will put my laws on their heart[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will call that my people, which was not my people[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I desire mercy, and not sacrifice[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]O death, where is thy sting?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For I work a work in your days,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]which ye shall in no wise believe[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]But my righteous one shall live by faith[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38[/SIZE]

Forgive me...

Have you by chance cross-referenced any of these quotes with the OT minus the Deuteros?