Why do all Western Bibles use the Masoretic Text?

[Exodus20]

Gnostic influence in the LXX? That is the strangest thing I've heard since ages! I swear this site is on drugs...

Well --- the site might be under the influence of narcotics , because they allow people that teach/believe that Mary is God's mom to post on here.

I find it amazing and sad that the very people who are most against what I have posted on this Thread are ( by the symbols next to your names/avatars ) are Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Both groups have extra-books in their 'Bibles' written by non-inspired writers. The Jews never had those extra non-Inspired books in the Holy Scriptures.

Several ( most ) people on this Thread are defending as 'scripture' a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible ( the O.T. ) put into the Greek language. You have accepted that spurious translation was / is better than the actual real-deal Hebrew Scriptures. That is upside-down lunacy !

The ancient scribes of Israel took great care in writing down the sacred words from The Creator. They would wash themselves before writing the name / title of The Almighty & Holy God. The best Hebrew texts should be used for our 'vulgar' language translations !

Using a Greek language translation of the Hebrew text for our English language Bibles is ... well ... It is like having a steel tape measure ( like a T-square ) and marking the inches and increments on a piece of notebook paper , and then giving that paper with the pencil marks of the inches and feet to a Building Contractor / Carpenter and expecting him to make a perfect house.


----- -------- ------ ----- ------ ----- -------- --------

To: Prodromos ; Since you seem to accept a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures as better than the original ... I guess you are not going to bother to investigate the history of the Septuagint. { Give this a look-see : h t t p: / / brandplucked dot webs dot com / nolxx dot htm You may not know him ( because he is not E.O. I surmise ) but he has done his homework. His name is Will , and he posts here on Christian forums. }

Get that book I mentioned above and look at it. Jay P. Green Sr. compared about 100 verses that have been changed/twisted/dropped from the 'Modern Versions'. That should concern you if you are a member of the E.O. because the E.O. strongly holds to the Nicene & Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedon Creed. Those Creeds were formulated to solidify what / who Jesus Christ was. There were heretics then as there are now. Heretics almost always pick apart or undermine what the Bible says about The Lord Jesus. I urge you to examine the links and read the book I mentioned. Stand for Christ and good doctrine !

I hold that it was cooked-up in Egypt by people that wanted to undermine the Deity of Christ in the first 1-3 centuries A.D.. Later on, people inserted the LXX readings into documents and scripture copies to make it ( the text ) seem to go along with the Alexandrian way of thinking. The Byzantine/Majority family of Texts read differently that the Alexandrian family.

Prodromos: ask yourself: --- Why? Remember : The God of Abraham , Isaac & Jacob is not the author of confusion.

I do NOT think that the so-called LXX is worth anything other that parakeet cage liner. Even the I.S.B.E. ( NOT a friend of the Authorized Version btw ) says that the Septuagint is a very inferior document. It matters not what your group or the Vatican-boys hold to. Your group and their group is very old ... but so are the Druids , Hindus , and tree-worshippers in the Amazon jungle. Being an 'Old Group" does not make true. Adherence to Holy Scripture is what makes a group correct. Please - Call or write the Orthodox Synagogue Rabbis in your Country and ask them what Hebrew texts do they read aloud from on Sabbath ?

----- ------ -------- -------- ------ ---------- --------- ---------

To : The Thread starter - aabcabb3 ... I tried to correct your wrong statement that you opened this Thread with. I gave you the correct answer:
Most Western ( Modern Versions ) do NOT use the Masoretic Texts , but have gone over to using Kittel's Biblia Hebraica which uses the "Ben Asher" texts - which nobody used for some 400 years , because they were inferior. Nowadays , the inferior is in vogue ... just like the Codex Sinaiticus , and Codex Vaticanus for the N.T..

So far you have not seen (?) or acknowledged the facts of my post. Why not ask a Orthodox Jewish Rabbi which Hebrew texts they read from on the Sabbath meetings ? I'll betcha a cigar that NONE of them read from the Septuagint in the Synagogues.

I posted some great links to great Commentaries by men who knew Hebrew better than most Rabbis do in A.D. 2014. Please read them. John Gill and Adam Clarke knew the subject matter. I don't get a thin dime for posting on the internet... I do it to help folks take the Narrow Path instead of the Wide Road.

I have got to get off the computer and do other things... I hope you will read all those links,,, and call an Orthodox Rabbi today and ask him what is inside those scrolls. bye. Is. 40:8

 

[prodromos]

Once again Exodus20, you've written a lot and said nothing to answer the questions asked of you.

What are some examples of Gnostic influence in the Septuagint?
You made the claim, at least be willing to back it up with something. Do you have anything?

 

[Exodus20]

Prodromos : I have just edited my first post directed to the O.P.. Hope that will make you and your Septuagint promoting compadres happy. Now maybe the Thread O.P. can now go read those excellent Commentaries which I mentioned earlier. btw - My post had some excellent points and thought which you have ignored. I said much , and my words are for the fidelity of God's Inspired word. You are for 'Tradition' over scripture. Matthew 10:14.

 

[abacabb3]

To : The Thread starter - aabcabb3 ... I tried to correct your wrong statement that you opened this Thread with. I gave you the correct answer:
Most Western ( Modern Versions ) do NOT use the Masoretic Texts , but have gone over to using Kittel's Biblia Hebraica which uses the "Ben Asher" texts - which nobody used for some 400 years , because they were inferior. Nowadays , the inferior is in vogue ... just like the Codex Sinaiticus , and Codex Vaticanus for the N.T..

So far you have not seen (?) or acknowledged the facts of my post. Why not ask a Orthodox Jewish Rabbi which Hebrew texts they read from on the Sabbath meetings ? I'll betcha a cigar that NONE of them read from the Septuagint in the Synagogues.

I posted some great links to great Commentaries by men who knew Hebrew better than most Rabbis do in A.D. 2014. Please read them. John Gill and Adam Clarke knew the subject matter. I don't get a thin dime for posting on the internet... I do it to help folks take the Narrow Path instead of the Wide Road.

I have got to get off the computer and do other things... I hope you will read all those links,,, and call an Orthodox Rabbi today and ask him what is inside those scrolls. bye. Is. 40:8

Before I read those links, regardless of which Hebrew manuscript is presently being used, my question is why do the translators use a source which differs from the source the NT writer used?

 

[prodromos]

Prodromos : I have just edited my first post directed to the O.P.. Hope that will make you and your Septuagint promoting compadres happy.

The Spirit of God leads us to humbling ourselves and admitting our faults. If we are unwilling to apologise and admit our mistakes it is because we are filled with pride and are far from being led by God.

Now maybe the Thread O.P. can now go read those excellent Commentaries which I mentioned earlier. btw - My post had some excellent points and thought which you have ignored.

Perhaps. Unfortunately when someone posts rubbish it tends to reflect on the quality of the rest of what they've posted. Plus I tend to find that the higher the opinion someone has of the own posts, the lower the actual value of their posts. It all comes back to that spirit of pride.

I said much , and my words are for the fidelity of God's Inspired word. You are for 'Tradition' over scripture. Matthew 10:14.

You could not be more wrong. For Orthodox Christians, Scripture and Tradition are inseperable. Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition.

 

[prodromos]

So far you have not seen (?) or acknowledged the facts of my post. Why not ask a Orthodox Jewish Rabbi which Hebrew texts they read from on the Sabbath meetings ? I'll betcha a cigar that NONE of them read from the Septuagint in the Synagogues.

Interestingly enough, a Jewish community in Kastoria, Greece, who were refugees from Spain used Greek as the language of their worship. A copy of the Old Testament was unearthed in Kastoria a few decades ago which was written in Greek but using the Hebrew alphabet since they could not read or write in Greek. What language modern Jews read their scriptures in has never been a point of discussion. Historically it is proven that many Jewish communities across the diaspora used Greek as their first language and particularly for their worship of God.

In the Jerusalem Talmud it is recorded that the Holy Scriptures may not translated, save into Greek. Also in the Babylonian Talmud the Rabbi says: 'The Holy Scriptures? Either in Hebrew or in Greek'

 

[Unix]

A much more likely reason is that there were a couple of Editions of the LXX circulating, that differed from each other slightly, just like there has been in other languages for hundreds of years:

To be fair, there is supposedly reason to believe the Greek Translations of the OT used in the NT were either different from the LXX (an older tradition) or Paul and company were actually employing Hebrew Scriptures and translating what they said into Greek.

Being that the LXX translators attempted to make a faithful translation and that the NT writers, if they were working with Hebrew Scriptures but translating passages into Greek for their letters, were too this would explain high similarities but the lack of perfect correspondence.

Regarding the OP subject line question, I think it's because there are many more Bible translators who are interested in Hebrew, than there are ones interested in and skilled in classical Septuagint Greek.

 

[abacabb3]

A much more likely reason is that there were a couple of Editions of the LXX circulating, that differed from each other slightly, just like there has been in other languages for hundreds of years:



Regarding the OP subject line question, I think it's because there are many more Bible translators who are interested in Hebrew, than there are ones interested in and skilled in classical Septuagint Greek.

So, it is a matter of preference in scholarship and not a true conviction in what is the closest to the original autographs of the Scripture?

 

[prodromos]

Exodus20, you owe me a cigar!

 

[Hawkiz]

When was the Septuagint written? Approximately 250 years before Christ. It was widely accepted by the Jewish community.
When was the Septuagint challenged? Sometime after 100 years after Christ. (At the so called 'Counsel of Jamnia).
Why were these writings challenged and rejected by Jewish leaders? Many reasons are now given, not the least of which is that they DID NOT believe in Jesus Christ, and wanted to distinguish Judaism from Christianity.

Why should any professing Christian choose to 'side' with Jewish leaders who reject Christ on any issue? How is choosing to side with those who reject Christ in any way to be considered a Christian ideal? Who is really following the 'traditions of man' in this? Did Christ, the 12, and St. Paul quote from the Septuagint? (Yes). If it was 'good enough' for Jesus to quote from, why shouldn't it be 'good enough' for us to use today? (If it was 'good enough for Jesus to quote from in His teachings, I should think that alone makes it better that bird cage liner!)

When did Christians first reject the Septuagint? When it didn't fit with their personal belief system. Should our personal beliefs form the Canon of Scripture? Or should we conform our personal beliefs to those of Scripture?

Again, you have made it clear that you reject the Septuagint, but when pressed for 'Why?', your arguments have fallen flat in the face of history. You have yet to show any link from the Gnostics and the Septuagint, and since the Septuagint was written hundreds of years prior to the Gnostic movement, you won't be able to do so...

You have asked others to pray and reflect on why they believe the Septuagint to be inspired. I will ask you to do the same: are you rejecting these writing because the early reformers didn't like them/couldn't keep them and make their theology work? (II Macc. Makes a strong case for Purgatory for example). Or do you reject them because the Orthodox and others have them and always have? Ask yourself why you have chosen to 'side' with those who have rejected Christ as to what should be included in Scripture?

Peace in Christ

 

[WisdomTree]

Well --- the site might be under the influence of narcotics , because they allow people that teach/believe that Mary is God's mom to post on here.

So you're saying that Jesus is not God?

 

[abacabb3]

When did Christians first reject the Septuagint? When it didn't fit with their personal belief system. Should our personal beliefs form the Canon of Scripture? Or should we conform our personal beliefs to those of Scripture?

To be fair the Latin VUlgate is derived from Hebrew while the Old Latin translation used the Septuagint.[/QUOTE]

 

[Knee V]

I have a very simple question. In the Old Testament, most western (and Protestant) translations use the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.

Now, the Masoretic Text is the only Hebrew available to use today aside from what we have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many Christians believe the MT is totally inerrant, without error in its presentation of the OT, equivalent to the original autographs of the Scripture.

I do not believe this position, because there are parts of the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted, but clearly the Masoretic Text differs from what is quoted. Further, we have found that the Greek Septuagint more closely matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.

Does anyone want to defend the Masoretic Text?

I will not defend it. I am not opposed to using Hebrew; I'm just opposed to using the Masoretic Text. It is the fruit of those who reject Christ as a matter of dogma and is christologically deficient (and possibly deliberately so), while the LXX and some other translations are part of the historical life of those who have embraced and professed Christ and died for His name, and are much more blatantly christological.

 

[James Is Back]

It seems that a few people who use the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are the KJVO people who seem to believe that they are the most reliable translations around.

 

[JM]

Quote:

"So what were the New Testament writers and Christ quoting? There are 268 references to "as it is written" in the New Testament. Few match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament passages they refer to. Eighty-eight match (or are matched by) Origen's Septuagint. Most of the other 180 don't match any ancient document word for word. Some have suggested that perhaps an Aramaic translation of the Old Testament or a Chaldean paraphrase are being quoted but this is unlikely. Actually the explanation is simple and has been known for a long time. The Greek phrase "as it is written" is a common one in ancient Greek writings. It is never an indication of an exact quote - in the New Testament or anywhere else.

Frederick Spitta wrote a century ago, "According to the unvarying practice in the New Testament, the citation formula "as it is written" is never the introductory clause but rather always follows a report of something seen as the fulfillment of a prophetic word." The phrase implies not a quotation but a reference to a fulfillment of a prediction or a prophecy. For example, see the way the phrase, "as it is written," is used in the writings of Justin Martyr. These passages are simply not quotes at all - they are allusions to Old Testament prophecies. These are Holy Spirit inspired allusions - they are not quotations at all. This was clear to the Reformed theologians and many of the old Church of England writers. A little bit of research gives a clear explanation."

 

[lesliedellow]

Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided strong evidence for believing that the Old Testament had been very well preserved in the Masoretic Text. Where a direct A-B comparison could be made, the only dirrerences involved things like spelling and punctuation.

The New Testament's quotations from the Old Testament are close to the Septuagint for the very simple reason that the authors were quoting from the Septuagint (or from memory).

 

[JM]

The New Testament's quotations from the Old Testament are close to the Septuagint for the very simple reason that the authors were quoting from the Septuagint (or from memory).

lesliedellow, you wrote "close to the LXX." That has been my understanding from the reading I've done. Close, but not exactly. I believe the quote from Spitta makes sense.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

To the OP: As one post has pointed out, by no means all NT quotations are from the LXX. But it's not surprising that some would be. The NT seems to have been written in Greek. You'd expect it to use a Greek translation of the OT, just as theological works in English often quote common English translations. They don't always go back the original language and do their own translation, except where there's a significant difference that matters for the point the author is trying to make.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Also: The Nestle-Aland is, hands down, the best collection of the Biblical manuscripts. I don't know of anyone who'd deny this, except the KJV-only crew, and those guys should be taken just as seriously as those who say that Jesus appeared to them in their morning coffee or a piece of toast.

 

[JM]

We are discussing the OLD Testament MSS, the Nestle-Aland is an eclectic NEW Testament text. Your comment is off topic and extremely glib.

Yours in the Lord,

jm