Septuagint (LXX) errors Septuagint Error.

As I understand it in the Hellenistic period before Christ, Jewish rabbis would not allow the use of the Septuagint because it was unreliable.

Len.M said:

My figures as arrived at using the N.K.J.V. for Adams creation (Not the World) are BC 4162 & the Flood as BC 2530 and the Exodus as BC 1532.
MY figures as arrived at using the LXX (NETS) are ; Adams creation, BC 5508 and the Flood BC 3298.

Click to expand...

I've found a error in common biblical timelines that you might have not accounted for in my own study but it takes some explaining.

Gen 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Although no mention of Noah's age relative to his sons births we know he had 3 sons "after" he was 500 yrs old. This is the traditional dates used and the starting of Shems line.

Gen 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth....
Gen 9:28,29 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.

Noah lives another 350 years after the flood. 600 + 350 = 950

Gen 11:10,11 Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad.And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

This means Shem was 98 when the flood waters receded and it means he was born when Noah was 502 (600 - 98) which is still consistent with Noah being the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth "after" 500 yrs as 5:32 says. But biblical timeline records will lump "Shem, Ham and Japheth" counting when Noah was 500 then continue on from Shems line which would be 2 years out of sync.

Sorry to be so off topic, I'll try and pull it in, the LXX confirms the same details of Shems birth being calculated when Noah was 502 using the same verses. The exception is 5:28 is similar to the KJV reading which says "and Noah was five hundred years old..." But not saying "after". (I'm using Brenton Septuagint Translation for my LXX source) This seems more of a translation nuance then it is conflict.

With the inconsistency with Methuselah if LXX does push him past the flood (I haven't done the math) it's a bit silly since he wasn't on the Ark roster and the meaning of his name can be prophetic that his death sends the flood. The whole genealogy of Gen 5 has a lot of inconsistencies in the LXX with dates that it makes we want to believe it was a bad reference source than a copiest error (or just someone really bad with their numbers). There is too many errors in the dates that it wouldn't just be a sloppy copiest but an incompetent one. This doesn''t fix the problem and a bad source is perhaps even worse, but if true it may show different books/sections have fewer errors assuming there was better source material available.

Len.M said:

Septuagint Error.

The currently available copies (In English) of the Septuagint (LXX) has some very bad copyist errors between Gen.5:3 and Gen. 11:12. where the life spans of pre-flood people are given. If you calculate the time spans shown (very easy to do) you will see that they show Methuselah did not die until 14 years after the Flood. That of course is wrong and ridiculous, as it is contrary to a large amount of other Scripture. Both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles correctly show that Methuselah died the year of the Flood (just before). This copyist error spread over 5 chapters of Genesis does little to convince that the remainder of the current copy of the LXX is reliable. It also shows that the longevity of pre Flood peoples in the LXX is an error.

As a footnote to this I will add the following.

Archbishop Usher in A.D. 1650 arrived at the date for Adam’s creation as being, BC 4004 & the Flood as being, BC 2348 .
My figures as arrived at using the N.K.J.V. for Adams creation (Not the World) are BC 4162 & the Flood as BC 2530 and the Exodus as BC 1532.
MY figures as arrived at using the LXX (NETS) are ; Adams creation, BC 5508 and the Flood BC 3298.

Click to expand...

You haven’t read it in Greek then?

Which versions of the Septuagint have you read?

timf said:

As I understand it in the Hellenistic period before Christ, Jewish rabbis would not allow the use of the Septuagint because it was unreliable.

Click to expand...

Well it was quoted by the Apostles in the New Testament and was the primary Old Testament used by the early church until the Vulgate was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic texts (and also the Ethiopian Orthodox continued to use the Ge’ez Old Testament). , so it can’t be that bad.

If any rabbis objected to it, their objections are irrelevant from a Christian perspective.