What about the Greek Septuagint?

[NathanH83]

Was used by the early church?

 

[Andrew]

No, everyone spoke Hebrew back then and the gentiles blindly took their word for it.
You see the LXX was created and forged by the RCC later on for some unknown reason and they added a bunch of years to the bible for some strange reason as well.
There WAS however a greek translation of the Torah like waaaay long ago in the BC era but since every hebrew spoke hebrew it was rendered useless and must have gotten thrown away somewhere on accident.
Anyway good news because Saint Jerome made it all better by accepting the real hebrew bible waaaaay later on while also (being such a good sport and all) deciding to intergrade some of the RCCs forged LXX so they wouldn't get too butt hurt over switching to the new standard.. win win I say!
Plus now it makes sense with "young maiden" being replaced with the LXX "virgin" just to spare us the headache of explaining the virgin birth of Jesus when using the old testament prophesy... whew! could you imagine?

I hope that answers your embarrassing and ridiculous question Nathan



; )

 

[JRT]

The Septuagint was a translation of the Jewish scriptures about two centuries before Jesus. At that time the Hebrew language was dying and being supplanted by Greek. The suggestion that it was forged by the RCC is simply ludicrous and is not even worthy of debate.

 

[Andrew]

The Septuagint was a translation of the Jewish scriptures about two centuries before Jesus. At that time the Hebrew language was dying and being supplanted by Greek. The suggestion that it was forged by the RCC is simply ludicrous and is not even worthy of debate.

Thank you!

 

[Josiah]

Was used by the early church?

The LXX was a popular Greek TRANSLATION of several books some Jews wanted to read (many Jews outside the holy lands could hardly read Hebrew - if at all - and appreciated a translation). Just like the Latin Vulgate (a Latin translation) was for many centuries. Just like the KJV (an English translation) was for centuries for English speaking people and how Luther's (a German translation) was for many centuries for German speaking people (and many others since it was translated from German into over 50 other languages).

People who can read often appreciate (and will buy) books in their own language; they are less likely to buy, read and use books in a language they can't read or understand.

Simple.

That's it. That's all.




.

 

[Andrew]

The LXX was a popular Greek TRANSLATION of several books some Jews wanted to read (many Jews outside the holy lands could hardly read Hebrew - if at all - and appreciated a translation). Just like the Latin Vulgate (a Latin translation) was for many centuries. Just like the KJV (an English translation) was for centuries for English speaking people and how Luther's (a German translation) was for many centuries for German speaking people (and many others since it was translated from German into over 50 other languages).

People who can read often appreciate (and will buy) books in their own language; they are less likely to buy, read and use books in a language they can't read or understand.

Simple.

That's it. That's all.




.

Which is correct?
A) a young maiden shall conceive
B) a virgin shall conceive

Which had it right? The LXX or the Hebrew?

Translations are extremely necessary but when certain words, genealogies and phrases are deliberately changed it discredits Jesus as the messiah and becomes a stumbling block for the Jews.

Orthodox Jewish arguments:

The Tanakh clearly tells us Jews that the Messiah will NOT have a miraculous birth, thus any miraculous birth is a sign of a pagan cult hence Christianity

Shem had a mother and a father, death and a birth, the NT lies when it says he is eternal, Shem is melchezidic because he passed down the kingship to Abraham and then to Levi NOT Judah, therefore Jesus can not be the new high priest

Jesus and his apostles misquote the old testament over and over again to prove he fulfilled prophecies when our hebrew shows that they weren't the same prophecies

 

[JRT]

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy.

 

[Andrew]

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy.

Interesting fact: Sons of Zadok is where the word "Sadducees" came from

 

[Josiah]

Jesus and his apostles misquote the old testament over and over again

I disagree that Jesus was a liar.

Which had it right? The LXX or the Hebrew?

No translation is perfect.

The original text is always the one used by theologians (theology is NEVER from a translation), but then again, what IS the original text is not always a simple issue - although I know of no dogma that depends on a problematic text.

Translations are extremely necessary

Well, kinda USEFUL for laity. Useless for pastors, theologians and for the discussion of theology. I've never seen my pastor use a translation. I'd bet he owns one, I've just never seen it. All pastors well know Hebrew and Greek so that translations are useless to them.

For laity that are literate in their native language, they're nice... and publishing houses have discovered publishing and selling such translations is very profitable.




.




.

 

[Andrew]

No translation is perfect.

The original text is always the one used by theologians (theology is NEVER from a translation; my pastor doesn't EVER use ANY translation), but then again, what IS the original text is not always a simple issue - although I know of no dogma that depends on a problematic text.





Well, USEFUL for laity. Useless for pastors, theologians and for the discussion of theology.

For laity that are literate in their native language, they're nice... and publishing houses have discovered publishing and selling such translations is very profitable.






I disagree that Jesus was a liar.




.

I also agree that Jesus wasn't a liar, one of the reasons why I prefer the Septuagint because he directly quotes from it verbatim, why didn't the Jewish elders call him out on his "misquotes" if they had the correct version?