What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[Andrew]

Since we have no original Hebrew manuscripts your comment cannot be supported. It is not only pure speculation but disingenuous.

And besides, all Septuagint manuscripts do not have exactly the same text. They have textual differences between them.

If the LXX predates the Masoretic, and the New Testament quotations of the old are practically verbatim to the LXX and not the Masoretic...then what's the logic behind it?

Was the LXX created to correct the errors of the NT quotations like some Jewish rabbis suggest? Or was the LXX closer to an earlier Hebrew text that no longer exists?

The LXX is not perfect, neither Nathan or I ever claimed the that it's perfect, there are many versions of it and plus it's very ancient, the Masoretic has only one version and it's very recent (a thousand years later).

The proto Hebrew Masoretic mixed with the LXX (our OT according to Jerome) is just as sloppy as the LXX (for their many codex's) but the LXX (pick or choose your codex) is far more accurate than the Hebrew Masoretic according to the New Testament.

The Apocrypha books are found in the more accurate body (LXX).

If you can find any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any "apocrypha" book to be defined as such then please provide evidence.

IF Jesus misquoted any verses that had to be corrected by Christians later on, then why wasn't their any objections or questioning from his disciples? When he says "it is written" then by God IT IS, where is it written in the OT "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise"?

and how did the LXX get it right?

We can say "well it's basically the same thing".. but still the LXX agrees, just luck or later forged?

 

[Origen]

If the LXX predates the Masoretic

I never said a word about the Masoretic so your point is moot.

and the New Testament quotations of the old are practically verbatim to the LXX and not the Masoretic...then what's the logic behind it?

You are glossing over the truth of the matter. See link.

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

Was the LXX created to correct the errors of the NT quotations like some Jewish rabbis suggest?

What? You need to try and understand my point and stop trying to twist my words into something I never said.

Or was the LXX closer to an earlier Hebrew text that no longer exists?

Since we don't have any original Hebrew manuscripts, how are you going to support that point? The fact is there simply is no manuscript evidence to support your claim. The Hebrew manuscript evidence from Qumran proves the Masoretic text tradition existed before the 1st century.

neither Nathan or I ever claimed the that it's perfect

I never claimed you did so your point is moot.

the Masoretic has only one version and it's very recent (a thousand years later).

Again not true. Dead sea scroll manuscripts have been compared with Masoretic text and there are remarkably similar. We also have Jerome translation as a witness. It was finished in 4th century using Hebrew manuscripts which would have obviously predated that. That text also is remarkably similar.

Your point also overlooks the fact that there are textual variants with the LXX manuscript evidence.

The proto Hebrew Masoretic mixed with the LXX (our OT according to Jerome) is just as sloppy as the LXX (for their many codex's) but the LXX (pick or choose your codex) is far more accurate than the Hebrew Masoretic according to the New Testament.

Where does Jerome make that claim? You keep saying stuff like with zero evidence. Cite the primary source.

The Apocrypha books are found in the more accurate body (LXX).

You are making an empty claim. You have no manuscript evidence to which to compare it. There are no full copies of the LXX before the 4th century. None! Moreover as I have point out before the LXX is not always consistent with book of the Apocrypha.

For example, in Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabees and 4th Maccabees but are missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

This idea of yours that all the manuscript evidence for LXX is identical is demonstrably false.

For example:
(1) The church dropped LXX's Daniel for Theodotion's Daniel.
(2) There are two Greek versions of the book of Ruth in the LXX tradition (and Ruth is not the only book with two Greek versions).

Happy Septuagint Day

In 2006, the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies established February 8 as International Septuagint Day, a day to celebrate the Septuagint and encourage its study. Below is a pic of 4Q120 (4 = cave 4, Q = Qumran). This is a fragment from Leviticus 4:26-28. It is one...

christianityhaven.com

If you can find any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any "apocrypha" book to be defined as such then please provide evidence.

There is none that I know of. Now it is your turn.

Cite any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any book of the "apocrypha" to be Scripture as such and please provide evidence.

Cite any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any book of the "apocrypha" was part of the Septuagint and then please provide evidence.

IF Jesus misquoted any verses that had to be corrected by Christians later on

I never said Jesus misquoted anything so again your point is moot. However, I have long pointed out some quotes are closer to the LXX while others are closer to the Hebrew text. This is nothing new.

I have also point out that the LXX does a horrible job with some messianic prophecies.
Hosea 11:1

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

Isaiah 9:6

Early Christian writings along with the NT...

Have you found a number of almond blossoms on a mountain..?

christianityhaven.com

You conveniently overlook evidence that does not support your point.

 

[Andrew]

I never said a word about the Masoretic so your point is moot.


You are glossing over the truth of the matter. See link.

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

What? You need to try and understand my point and stop trying to twist my words into something I never said.


Since we don't have any original Hebrew manuscripts, how are you going to support that point? The fact is there simply is no manuscript evidence to support your claim. The Hebrew manuscript evidence from Qumran proves the Masoretic text tradition existed before the 1st century.


I never claimed you did so your point is moot.


Again not true. Dead sea scroll manuscripts have been compared with Masoretic text and there are remarkably similar. We also have Jerome translation as a witness. It was finished in 4th century using Hebrew manuscripts which would have obviously predated that. That text also is remarkably similar.

Your point also overlooks the fact that there are textual variants with the LXX manuscript evidence.


Where does Jerome make that claim? You keep saying stuff like with zero evidence. Cite the primary source.


You are making an empty claim. You have no manuscript evidence to which to compare it. There are no full copies of the LXX before the 4th century. None! Moreover as I have point out before the LXX is not always consistent with book of the Apocrypha.

For example, in Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabees and 4th Maccabees but are missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

This idea of yours that all the manuscript evidence for LXX is identical is demonstrably false.

For example:
(1) The church dropped LXX's Daniel for Theodotion's Daniel.
(2) There are two Greek versions of the book of Ruth in the LXX tradition (and Ruth is not the only book with two Greek versions).

Happy Septuagint Day

In 2006, the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies established February 8 as International Septuagint Day, a day to celebrate the Septuagint and encourage its study. Below is a pic of 4Q120 (4 = cave 4, Q = Qumran). This is a fragment from Leviticus 4:26-28. It is one...

christianityhaven.com

There is none that I know of. Now it is your turn.

Cite any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any book of the "apocrypha" to be Scripture as such and please provide evidence.

Cite any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any book of the "apocrypha" was part of the Septuagint and then please provide evidence.


I never said Jesus misquoted anything so again your point is moot. However, I have long pointed out some quotes are closer to the LXX while others are closer to the Hebrew text. This is nothing new.

I have also point out that the LXX does a horrible job with some messianic prophecies.
Hosea 11:1

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

Isaiah 9:6

Early Christian writings along with the NT...

Have you found a number of almond blossoms on a mountain..?

christianityhaven.com

You conveniently overlook evidence that does not support your point.

The claim regarding Jerome is in the pudding, is his translation strictly from the proto Masoretic alone? Or does it contain the greek translation as well?

 

[Origen]

The claim regarding Jerome is in the pudding, is his translation strictly from the proto Masoretic alone? Or does it contain the greek translation as well?

I see you are backing off what you initially claimed in post 81. You originally said "according to Jerome." That means you don't have any primary sources to back up your claim.

Now you say it "is in the pudding" but you want me to prove it for you.

You tell me. You are making the claim and it is your responsibility to support it. Either you have the evidence or you don't.

 

[Andrew]

I see you are backing off what you initially claimed in post 81. You originally said "according to Jerome." That means you don't have any primary sources to back up your claim.

Now you say it "is in the pudding" but you want me to prove it for you.

You tell me. You are making the claim and it is your responsibility to support it. Either you have the evidence or you don't.

Read your OT, that's the pudding

Is it 100% Masoretic? Nope
Is it 100% LXX? Nope

 

[Origen]

Read your OT, that's the pudding

Is it 100% Masoretic? Nope
Is it 100% LXX? Nope

In other words you have zero objective evidence.

 

[Andrew]

I see you are backing off what you initially claimed in post 81. You originally said "according to Jerome." That means you don't have any primary sources to back up your claim.

Now you say it "is in the pudding" but you want me to prove it for you.

You tell me. You are making the claim and it is your responsibility to support it. Either you have the evidence or you don't.

Evidence is that we are even discussing this.
If Christians never read it or accepted it then we simply wouldn't be having this conversation.

Unless you believe that these books are the jewish fables that crept into the church unawares and brought in false doctrines, if that ISN'T an argument you wish to defend then explain how "the cat in that hat" and "where's waldo" made it into our Christian bibles in the first place? Why do we even know of them?

 

[NathanH83]

If the LXX predates the Masoretic, and the New Testament quotations of the old are practically verbatim to the LXX and not the Masoretic...then what's the logic behind it?

I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out why any truthful Christian cannot understand the logic behind this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

Evidence is that we are even discussing this.

Sorry, no. This comment only proves you have zero objective evidence for you claim.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text.
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

If Christians never read it or accepted it then we simply wouldn't be having this conversation.

That claim does nothing to support your claim concerning Jerome.

Unless you believe that these books are the jewish fables that crept into the church unawares and brought in false doctrines

I reject your false dilemma fallacy.

if that ISN'T an argument you wish to defend then explain how "the cat in that hat" and "where's waldo" made it into our Christian bibles in the first place? Why do we even know of them?

You are simply trying to change the subject in order to cover up the fact that you cannot defend your claims with objective evidence. Either you have the evidence or you don't.

 

[Andrew]

In other words you have zero objective evidence.

Evidence is..
they exist
they existed in our HOLY bibles up until the 1800s.

 

[Andrew]

In other words you have zero objective evidence.

The OT is OUR book, they don't belong to the unbelievers, what they later reject or claim as official canon should have had no impact on OUR Bible, Jesus' disciples were Jews, and they were Christians, the OT is for Christians and Christians accepted "those" books because OBVIOUSLY they made it into the Church as part of our HOLY BIBLE.

"Finally, see if you can easily find a place in holy Scripture where the soul is properly
mentioned in terms of praise: it frequently occurs, on the contrary, accompanied with
expressions of censure, as in the passage, “An evil soul ruins him who possesses it
[Sirach 6:4]." Origen, First Principles, 2, 8, 2).

 

[Andrew]

Homilies on Luke 21 (Luke 3:1:3) by Origen

Notice Origen says "The Lord Himself says.." and then quotes Wisdom 7:17-20

 

[Andrew]

A list of early Christian quotations from the Apocrypha, I bet you couldn't even read them all in one sitting

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

 

[Andrew]

 

[Origen]

Homilies on Luke 21 (Luke 3:1:3) by Origen

Notice Origen says "The Lord Himself says.." and then quotes Wisdom 7:17-20

You do so like to change the subject when you cannot provide any evidence for your claim.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text.
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

What Origen believed proves nothing in regard to Jerome text.

 

[Origen]

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text.
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

What Origen believed proves nothing in regard to Jerome text.

 

[Origen]

A list of early Christian quotations from the Apocrypha, I bet you couldn't even read them all in one sitting

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

I never claim they didn't. So once again you are arguing against something I never said therefore your point is again irrelevant.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text.
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

Your last three posts are nothing more than attempts to change the subject in order to divert attention away from the fact you do not have objective evidence for your claim concerning Jerome's text.

 

[Andrew]

I never claim they didn't. So once again you are arguing against something I never said therefore your point is again irrelevant.

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text.
In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence.
Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

Your last three posts are nothing more than attempts to change the subject in order to divert attention away from the fact you do not have objective evidence for your claim concerning Jerome's text.

Does the Masoretic say young maiden or virgin in Isaiah?

 

[RichWh1]

The word used in Isaiah for virgin is alma which means a young woman betrothed to be married assumed to be a virgin ; it can also mean a young woman.
A virgin not betrothed is bethulah
Both can translate as virgin.

 

[NathanH83]

If the LXX predates the Masoretic, and the New Testament quotations of the old are practically verbatim to the LXX and not the Masoretic...then what's the logic behind it?

Was the LXX created to correct the errors of the NT quotations like some Jewish rabbis suggest? Or was the LXX closer to an earlier Hebrew text that no longer exists?

The LXX is not perfect, neither Nathan or I ever claimed the that it's perfect, there are many versions of it and plus it's very ancient, the Masoretic has only one version and it's very recent (a thousand years later).

The proto Hebrew Masoretic mixed with the LXX (our OT according to Jerome) is just as sloppy as the LXX (for their many codex's) but the LXX (pick or choose your codex) is far more accurate than the Hebrew Masoretic according to the New Testament.

The Apocrypha books are found in the more accurate body (LXX).

If you can find any testimony from before the Christian era that declare any "apocrypha" book to be defined as such then please provide evidence.

IF Jesus misquoted any verses that had to be corrected by Christians later on, then why wasn't their any objections or questioning from his disciples? When he says "it is written" then by God IT IS, where is it written in the OT "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise"?

and how did the LXX get it right?

We can say "well it's basically the same thing".. but still the LXX agrees, just luck or later forged?

Here’s a good example of how the New Testament follows the Greek Septuagint.

Notice in Hebrews 8, when quoting Jeremiah, it says that God disregarded His people:

“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.”
-Hebrews 8:9 (NKJV)

Notice how it says “and I disregarded them.”

But look at the quote from Jeremiah:

“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.”
-Jeremiah 31:32 (NKJV)

Notice how instead of saying “and I disregarded them,” it instead says, “though I was a husband to them.”

What???
That’s not how Hebrews quotes it!

But look how it’s worded in the Greek Septuagint:

“not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not abide in My covenant, and I disregarded them,” says the Lord.
-Jeremiah 38:32, (OSB)

Notice how it includes the phrase “and I disregarded them” just like the book of Hebrews does.

This is just one of hundreds of examples of New Testament writers siding with the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic text.