Septuagint vs. Massoretic Text

[Don Maurer]

The following is a reformed baptist scholar who compiled all of the LXX renderings in the NT. It would seem to me that there are simply so many, that translators really should weight the LXX more heavily in their renderings of the OT:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html

The link of LXX quotes ends in Romans.

 

[abacabb3]

If you can find more that'd be great If you scroll to the bottom, there are more references.

 

[JM]

I don't think that is an intellectual defense of your position. I am just saying, if you have a TR-only viewpoint, there needs to be some basis for it.

God bless!

I have already provided a basis for it more than once on this forum. But I'll let Daniel Wallace explain, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty." Source

This quote points to the underlying foundation upon which textual criticism is performed today. People just don't believe "God hath said." James White is the exception not the rule. He and Ehrman are arguing from the same side of the coin, using the same secular, naturalistic presupposition that encourages us to doubt.

I honestly mean it when I say we should really consider Orthodoxy or Rome if we accept modern criticism. Let's be consistent, if older means better...why not go with a church that is older? If we have to hand over our mss to scholars who deny the faith, and this is our magisterium, why not EO or Rome?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: I may fade away again for a time. You still have my email.

 

[abacabb3]

I have already provided a basis for it more than once on this forum. But I'll let Daniel Wallace explain, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty." Source

This quote points to the underlying foundation upon which textual criticism is performed today. People just don't believe "God hath said." James White is the exception not the rule. He and Ehrman are arguing from the same side of the coin, using the same secular, naturalistic presupposition that encourages us to doubt.

I honestly mean it when I say we should really consider Orthodoxy or Rome if we accept modern criticism. Let's be consistent, if older means better...why not go with a church that is older? If we have to hand over our mss to scholars who deny the faith, and this is our magisterium, why not EO or Rome?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: I may fade away again for a time. You still have my email.

Stay in touch, are you on facebook?