I believe Noah’s flood was 5,000 years ago, not 4,400.

[Lees]

That doesn’t explain how Origen “authored” it.

Do you know what it means to author something?

If I say that C.S. Lewis authored “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe” then that means that it DIDN’T EXIST before he was born.

Please explain how Origen “authored” the Alexandrian manuscripts (as you call them) prior to him being BORN!

I have stated repeatedly many times. See posts # (81) and (87).

Lees

 

[Lees]

From a far more accurate original Hebrew text in which the various greek translations are authentic witnesses to, this is no opinion of my own, as anyone can easily read the same exact OT quotes in the New Testament as I can and see that the New Testament firmly attests to the truer Text being the Greek translations.

That is an assumption. You have no Hebrew text to verify. All you can do is go to Greek translations. The Alexandrian Texts. Origen's Hexapla.

Again, I'm not asking for the 'original manuscripts'. I'm asking from what Hebrew Text is the Septuagint translated from. And there isn't one.

The Masoretic Text is a Hebrew Text. If one translates the Old Testament into English using the Masoretic Text, he is going from Hebrew to English.

If one translates the Old Testament into English using the Alexandrian Texts, he is going from Greek to English, with no Hebrew Text to verify.

The quotes in the New Testament corresponding exactly with the Alexandrian Text of the Old Testament mean nothing without a Hebrew text from which to verify. They could have easily been added by the translator who had access to the New Testament. Remember, our oldest Alexandrian manuscripts date 4th and 5th century A.D. The earliest complete Greek translation of the Old Testament would be around 200 A.D. which is Origens Hexapla.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

That is an assumption. You have no Hebrew text to verify. All you can do is go to Greek translations. The Alexandrian Texts. Origen's Hexapla.

Again, I'm not asking for the 'original manuscripts'. I'm asking from what Hebrew Text is the Septuagint translated from. And there isn't one.

The Masoretic Text is a Hebrew Text. If one translates the Old Testament into English using the Masoretic Text, he is going from Hebrew to English.

If one translates the Old Testament into English using the Alexandrian Texts, he is going from Greek to English, with no Hebrew Text to verify.

The quotes in the New Testament corresponding exactly with the Alexandrian Text of the Old Testament mean nothing without a Hebrew text from which to verify. They could have easily been added by the translator who had access to the New Testament. Remember, our oldest Alexandrian manuscripts date 4th and 5th century A.D. The earliest complete Greek translation of the Old Testament would be around 200 A.D. which is Origens Hexapla.

Lees

Why would Christians falsify the entire Tanakh, creating a fake translation with alterations to agree with the New Testament when it would be easier just to change the New Testament quotes?

Not only would they have to change the New Testament quotes, but also Josephus, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The ante-nicene church fathers, etc... OCAMS RAZOR

It's a brenton Septuagint, I believe it cites 2 different translations of the Septuagint, Aquilas version was added after the 1rst century so I don't think it used any of that.
I forget the name of the main codex but in a few verses it may have a citation saying it's from the Alexandrian or whatever, kind of like the citation in the Book of Revelation in chapter 13 ["some manuscripts say 616 and not 666"]

But there is your answer, you can go on and on and on about how early Christians were so insecure and faithless that they had to make up a new Old Testament and save it in Latin but claim its from the Greek. I'm okay with you thinking that, it doesn't matter, you have my blessing to be King James Only and forever and Gail Riplingers number one fan.

Just remember to change the word "Virgin" which uses the greek word "Parthenos", to the correct Hebrew "almah" in the Masoretic, its in the book of Isaiah.

Good day to you

 

[Lees]

Why would Christians falsify the entire Tanakh, creating a fake translation with alterations to agree with the New Testament when it would be easier just to change the New Testament quotes?

Not only would they have to change the New Testament quotes, but also Josephus, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The ante-nicene church fathers, etc... OCAMS RAZOR

It's a brenton Septuagint, I believe it cites 2 different translations of the Septuagint, Aquilas version was added after the 1rst century so I don't think it used any of that.
I forget the name of the main codex but in a few verses it may have a citation saying it's from the Alexandrian or whatever, kind of like the citation in the Book of Revelation in chapter 13 ["some manuscripts say 616 and not 666"]

But there is your answer, you can go on and on and on about how early Christians were so insecure and faithless that they had to make up a new Old Testament and save it in Latin but claim its from the Greek. I'm okay with you thinking that, it doesn't matter, you have my blessing to be King James Only and forever and Gail Riplingers number one fan.

Just remember to change the word "Virgin" which uses the greek word "Parthenos", to the correct Hebrew "almah" in the Masoretic, its in the book of Isaiah.

Good day to you

Why should I change the word 'virgin' in the New Testament? (Matt. 1:23) It speaks of a maid or unmarried daughter. By implication a virgin.
In (Isaiah 7:14) 'almah' speaks of a damsel or maid. And by implication a virgin also.

Without a doubt 'virgin' is the emphasis in the Gospels. In (Isaiah) the emphasis must be on a young woman ready to give birth. Why? Because the prophecy must have meaning to Ahaz. The virgin birth of Christ would have no meaning to Ahaz or Judah concerning the threat of Syria and Israel coming against them. As it was hundreds of years later.

This young woman who had a child would be Isaiah's wife. And that child, though not virgin born, would accomplish the near fulfillment of the prophecy. See (Is. 8:2-4).

I see no reason to change anything.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

Again, there is no Septuagint. The only evidence of a Septuagint is the fraudlent 'letter of Aristeas'. It is Origen's translation of the Old Testament that is beleived to represent the Septuagint. But it, in reality, is just Origen's translation of the Old Testament.

Lees

But how did Origen’s translation exist in the days of Justin Martyr?

Don’t you get it? Justin Martyr quotes from the “Translation of the Seventy”, and then when I look it up in my Septuagint, it reads the way Justin quoted it, which is DIFFERENT than the Masoretic, but the SAME as in my Septuagint.

But you say that my Septuagint was authored by Origen. Well then how does it read the same as someone who lived before Origen????

You’re not making sense!!!

 

[NathanH83]

Aside from your weird belief about the Septuagint, what about the original question?

It’s not just the Septuagint that puts the flood at 5,000 years ago. It’s also the Samaritan Bible, and also Josephus. They’re BEFORE the time of Origen.

Also there’s Theophilus, a church father from the 2nd century AD (prior to Origen) who also places the flood at 5,000 years ago. There’s also Eupolemus, a Jewish historian from about 150 BC who also agrees with the timeline that places the flood around 5,000 years ago.

I guess we’re just going to ignore what this post was originally about???

 

[Lees]

Why would Christians falsify the entire Tanakh, creating a fake translation with alterations to agree with the New Testament when it would be easier just to change the New Testament quotes?

Not only would they have to change the New Testament quotes, but also Josephus, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The ante-nicene church fathers, etc... OCAMS RAZOR

It's a brenton Septuagint, I believe it cites 2 different translations of the Septuagint, Aquilas version was added after the 1rst century so I don't think it used any of that.
I forget the name of the main codex but in a few verses it may have a citation saying it's from the Alexandrian or whatever, kind of like the citation in the Book of Revelation in chapter 13 ["some manuscripts say 616 and not 666"]

But there is your answer, you can go on and on and on about how early Christians were so insecure and faithless that they had to make up a new Old Testament and save it in Latin but claim its from the Greek. I'm okay with you thinking that, it doesn't matter, you have my blessing to be King James Only and forever and Gail Riplingers number one fan.

Just remember to change the word "Virgin" which uses the greek word "Parthenos", to the correct Hebrew "almah" in the Masoretic, its in the book of Isaiah.

Good day to you

The conflict is between the Alexandrian Texts and the Palestinian or Masoretic Text. The Alexandrian has always been questionable. They always tried to mix Greek philosopy with the Christian faith. Make it palitable. Philo was your chief proponet.

No, it would not have been easier to change the New Testament quotes. As to the early church fathers....it is those of Alexandria that supported the so called 'Septuagint'. Why? Because the Septuagint is just the Alexandrian Text.

You can't present a Hebrew Text that the so called Septuagint was translalted from. Because there is none. You have to just believe the Greek translationof the Alexandrian Texts.

The Septuagint is a lie. It doesn't exist. It is created by the Alexandrians to support their translations. Which of course included the Aporcryphal books. Which of course are rejected also by the Jews of Palestine.

The sad story of this is, all our modern translations of the Bible, accept this lie. And they translate in accordance with the so called Septuagint for the Old Testament. And, they translate with the Westcott/Hort Text for the New Testament. Which depends heavily on the Alexadrian Text. Also called the 'Minority Text'. Why? Because they reject the Majority of the New Testament manuscripts which are found in the Textus Receptus. The Text from which the KJV come from.

Westcott/Hort depend heavily on the Alexandrian Text for the New Testament. From which a small number of manuscripts and versions and copies exist. Therefore they accept this so called Septuagint from Alexandria. The KJV New Testament comes from the Textus Receptus, which use the Majority of manuscripts or versions, or copies of the New Testament.

When translating or dealing with canonicity, more is better. Less is, well, less acceptable. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ has fallen for this lie and embraced the Minority Text of Alexandria.

Lees

 

[Lees]

But how did Origen’s translation exist in the days of Justin Martyr?

Don’t you get it? Justin Martyr quotes from the “Translation of the Seventy”, and then when I look it up in my Septuagint, it reads the way Justin quoted it, which is DIFFERENT than the Masoretic, but the SAME as in my Septuagint.

But you say that my Septuagint was authored by Origen. Well then how does it read the same as someone who lived before Origen????

You’re not making sense!!!

Give me the quote from Justin Martyr about the 'translation of the 70'

No, If Justin Marty quotes it is from the Alexandrian Text. It is only claimed that it comes from the so called '70'. And, by the way, why is it claimed to come from the 70? It is supposed to be from the 72. See? The story, the lie of the 'letter of Aristeas' just grows and grows. They couldn't even get their story straight. Why does LXX mean the Septuagint when there were to be 72 translators?

No, I never said the Septuagint was 'authored' by Origen. I said that his translation of the Old Testament is believed to be the oldest representative of the so called lie of the Septuagint. There is no Septuagint.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

The conflict is between the Alexandrian Texts and the Palestinian or Masoretic Text. The Alexandrian has always been questionable. They always tried to mix Greek philosopy with the Christian faith. Make it palitable. Philo was your chief proponet.

No, it would not have been easier to change the New Testament quotes. As to the early church fathers....it is those of Alexandria that supported the so called 'Septuagint'. Why? Because the Septuagint is just the Alexandrian Text.

You can't present a Hebrew Text that the so called Septuagint was translalted from. Because there is none. You have to just believe the Greek translationof the Alexandrian Texts.

The Septuagint is a lie. It doesn't exist. It is created by the Alexandrians to support their translations. Which of course included the Aporcryphal books. Which of course are rejected also by the Jews of Palestine.

The sad story of this is, all our modern translations of the Bible, accept this lie. And they translate in accordance with the so called Septuagint for the Old Testament. And, they translate with the Westcott/Hort Text for the New Testament. Which depends heavily on the Alexadrian Text. Also called the 'Minority Text'. Why? Because they reject the Majority of the New Testament manuscripts which are found in the Textus Receptus. The Text from which the KJV come from.

Westcott/Hort depend heavily on the Alexandrian Text for the New Testament. From which a small number of manuscripts and versions and copies exist. Therefore they accept this so called Septuagint from Alexandria. The KJV New Testament comes from the Textus Receptus, which use the Majority of manuscripts or versions, or copies of the New Testament.

When translating or dealing with canonicity, more is better. Less is, well, less acceptable. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ has fallen for this lie and embraced the Minority Text of Alexandria.

Lees

Im not talking about Codex Sinaiticus found in 1844, it is completely irrelevant, it's an Alexandrian TYPE text but NOT the one used in the Brenton Septuagint nor the OSB. Wescott and Hort were trying to alter the New Testament, changing repentence to penance etc

 

[NathanH83]

Give me the quote from Justin Martyr about the 'translation of the 70'

No, If Justin Marty quotes it is from the Alexandrian Text. It is only claimed that it comes from the so called '70'. And, by the way, why is it claimed to come from the 70? It is supposed to be from the 72. See? The story, the lie of the 'letter of Aristeas' just grows and grows. They couldn't even get their story straight. Why does LXX mean the Septuagint when there were to be 72 translators?

No, I never said the Septuagint was 'authored' by Origen. I said that his translation of the Old Testament is believed to be the oldest representative of the so called lie of the Septuagint. There is no Septuagint.

Lees

Exodus 1:5 says that 70 people were in Jacob’s family.
But Stephen the Martyr says 75 people in Acts 7:14.
Are you going to make fun of the Bible now and say it can’t get its story straight?

They call it the “translation of the 70” as kind of a shorthand for the 72 translators. There’s no big contradiction there, unless you want to also say Stephen contradicts Exodus using the same logic.

 

[NathanH83]

Give me the quote from Justin Martyr about the 'translation of the 70'

No, If Justin Marty quotes it is from the Alexandrian Text. It is only claimed that it comes from the so called '70'. And, by the way, why is it claimed to come from the 70? It is supposed to be from the 72. See? The story, the lie of the 'letter of Aristeas' just grows and grows. They couldn't even get their story straight. Why does LXX mean the Septuagint when there were to be 72 translators?

No, I never said the Septuagint was 'authored' by Origen. I said that his translation of the Old Testament is believed to be the oldest representative of the so called lie of the Septuagint. There is no Septuagint.

Lees

Church fathers and Jewish historians said there was a Septuagint. But you say there wasn’t. Who should I believe? You? Or them?

Do you also believe the Earth is flat? The moon landing was faked? Do you think the Holocaust never happened?

How much history are you going to say doesn’t really exist? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

 

[NathanH83]

Give me the quote from Justin Martyr about the 'translation of the 70'

No, If Justin Marty quotes it is from the Alexandrian Text. It is only claimed that it comes from the so called '70'. And, by the way, why is it claimed to come from the 70? It is supposed to be from the 72. See? The story, the lie of the 'letter of Aristeas' just grows and grows. They couldn't even get their story straight. Why does LXX mean the Septuagint when there were to be 72 translators?

No, I never said the Septuagint was 'authored' by Origen. I said that his translation of the Old Testament is believed to be the oldest representative of the so called lie of the Septuagint. There is no Septuagint.

Lees

Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, lists off the genealogies in Genesis 11, and he gives the numbers that agree with the Greek Septuagint, NOT with the Hebrew Masoretic.

Now, why does Josephus agree with the Septuagint’s numbers? Did Origen travel back in time and hand Josephus the numbers from his translation?

Do you see how you’re not making sense?
What’s Origen got to do with it?
We’re talking about something that PRE-DATES the time of Origen. Stop talking about Origen. You’re obsessed with Origen. We’re talking about a text that PRE-DATES the time of Origen. This literally has NOTHING to do with anything that Origen did!

 

[Lees]

Exodus 1:5 says that 70 people were in Jacob’s family.
But Stephen the Martyr says 75 people in Acts 7:14.
Are you going to make fun of the Bible now and say it can’t get its story straight?

They call it the “translation of the 70” as kind of a shorthand for the 72 translators. There’s no big contradiction there, unless you want to also say Stephen contradicts Exodus using the same logic.

One is the Bible. Your 'they' is not.

Any difference in numbers in the Bible is an opportunity to learn something God is saying.

Your difference in the so called Septuagint means they couldn't get their story straight. The letter of Aristeas is a fraud. Not Scripture.

They call it lying.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Church fathers and Jewish historians said there was a Septuagint. But you say there wasn’t. Who should I believe? You? Or them?

Do you also believe the Earth is flat? The moon landing was faked? Do you think the Holocaust never happened?

How much history are you going to say doesn’t really exist? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Hellenistic Jews, Alexandrian Jews, say there was a Septuagint. Not the Palestinian Jews, from whom come the Hebrew Text. Believe whoever you want. You can't present a Septuagint. You can't present the Hebrew Text that the so called Septuagint was translated from. But...believe whoever you want.

You sound like so many. You must somehow associate me as a conspiracy theorist. Just like it is so common to tie everyone to Hitler that you disagree with. That must make me 'evil' in everyones eyes. So I should not be believed. It's an old trick. Try and find another.

But, since you brought it up. Why arn't Christians conspiracy theorist's?

Do you believe in God? satan? The spiritual warfare? The 'deception' satan uses in purporting his mystery of iniquity? (2 Thess. 2:7-12) Gee...I guess that makes you a Christian conspiracist.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian, lists off the genealogies in Genesis 11, and he gives the numbers that agree with the Greek Septuagint, NOT with the Hebrew Masoretic.

Now, why does Josephus agree with the Septuagint’s numbers? Did Origen travel back in time and hand Josephus the numbers from his translation?

Do you see how you’re not making sense?
What’s Origen got to do with it?
We’re talking about something that PRE-DATES the time of Origen. Stop talking about Origen. You’re obsessed with Origen. We’re talking about a text that PRE-DATES the time of Origen. This literally has NOTHING to do with anything that Origen did!

Well, Josephus writings are not the Bible...are they?

There is no Septuagint that agrees with Josephus. You have Alexandrian Texts that may exist.

I have explained what Origen has to do with it already. You are talking about something that 'claims' to pre-date Origen. But the claim and the substance are not the same. Just because some believe the 'letter of Aristeas' doesn't make it so. And I have shown you it is false.

All you have are the Alexandrian Texts that are oppossed to the Palestinian Masoretic Texts. All you have is the Greek translation oppossed to the Hebrew Text.

It has everything to do with Origen because it is his translation in the Hexapla that is the oldest known representation of the Septuagint. But it is in reality, as I have said many times already, is just Origens translation and not any Septuagint from some lying story about some 72 Jews that couldn't get their Roman numerals right. LXX should be LXXII.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

Well, Josephus writings are not the Bible...are they?

There is no Septuagint that agrees with Josephus. You have Alexandrian Texts that may exist.

I have explained what Origen has to do with it already. You are talking about something that 'claims' to pre-date Origen. But the claim and the substance are not the same. Just because some believe the 'letter of Aristeas' doesn't make it so. And I have shown you it is false.

All you have are the Alexandrian Texts that are oppossed to the Palestinian Masoretic Texts. All you have is the Greek translation oppossed to the Hebrew Text.

It has everything to do with Origen because it is his translation in the Hexapla that is the oldest known representation of the Septuagint. But it is in reality, as I have said many times already, is just Origens translation and not any Septuagint from some lying story about some 72 Jews that couldn't get their Roman numerals right. LXX should be LXXII.

Lees

The Masoretic does not match the Hebrew Text that the New Testament primarily quotes from, they either quoted from the same source the LXX were copied from, or they misquoted the Hebrew scriptures all together.

You are implying that either they misquoted the Hebrew or that because God can do what he wants, it's logical to believe that when citing OT scripture He can change it for some deep esoteric teaching that no one but you has even suggested.

Tell us, what deep hidden teaching does changing 75 to 70 have that has ultimately caused the early Church to fabricate an entire OT that never existed before?

 

[NathanH83]

Well, Josephus writings are not the Bible...are they?

There is no Septuagint that agrees with Josephus. You have Alexandrian Texts that may exist.

I have explained what Origen has to do with it already. You are talking about something that 'claims' to pre-date Origen. But the claim and the substance are not the same. Just because some believe the 'letter of Aristeas' doesn't make it so. And I have shown you it is false.

All you have are the Alexandrian Texts that are oppossed to the Palestinian Masoretic Texts. All you have is the Greek translation oppossed to the Hebrew Text.

It has everything to do with Origen because it is his translation in the Hexapla that is the oldest known representation of the Septuagint. But it is in reality, as I have said many times already, is just Origens translation and not any Septuagint from some lying story about some 72 Jews that couldn't get their Roman numerals right. LXX should be LXXII.

Lees

Josephus was given the Hebrew scrolls that were laid up in the temple. That has nothing to do with Origen.

 

[Lees]

The Masoretic does not match the Hebrew Text that the New Testament primarily quotes from, they either quoted from the same source the LXX were copied from, or they misquoted the Hebrew scriptures all together.

You are implying that either they misquoted the Hebrew or that because God can do what he wants, it's logical to believe that when citing OT scripture He can change it for some deep esoteric teaching that no one but you has even suggested.

Tell us, what deep hidden teaching does changing 75 to 70 have that has ultimately caused the early Church to fabricate an entire OT that never existed before?

The Masoretic is the Hebrew Text from the Palestinian Jews.

You cannot present a Hebrew Text that the so called Septuagint is translated from. It is just a Greek translation supposedly of the Hebrew.

In other words, the changes made by the so called Septuagint are not found in the Hebrew. But everyone wants to accept this so called Greek Septuagint because it matches the Old Testament quotes fround in the New Testament.

With the New Testament you have two major different Texts that it is translated from. 1.) Textus Receptus, also called the Majority Text, or the Antioch Text. 2.) Westcott/Hort, also called the Minority Text, or the Alexandrian Text.

Because Westcot and Hort depend heavily on the Alexandrian Text in their New Testament translation, then their Greek translation of the Old Testament quotes will naturally fit the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament. Which is known as the Septuagint. The oldest translation being found in Origen's Hexapla. 200 A.D.

So, Modern Bibles most all use the Alexandrian Text for the Old Testament and Westcott/Hort for the New Testament. Whereas the KJV uses the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus for the New.

There is a certain axiom Bible translators use. You never opt for the easiest. But of course that has been abandoned.

Deep esoteric? No. For example: (Matt. 21:16) has Jesus saying "Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" This comes from (Ps. 8:2) in the Hebrew Old Testament. But there it says, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength." It simply means Jesus is associating praise with strength. And don't we as believers find this to be true?

Lees

 

[Lees]

This type of discussion always boils down to either the acceptance of the Textus Receptus or the Westcott/Hort text.

One must do their own study of this to come to a decision. And you should. What was the motive behind the KJV translators? What was the motive behind Westcott and Hort? Who were the translators of the KJV? Who was Westcott and Hort.

What Scripture is found in the KJV that is not found in the Modern Bibles? There are about 16, I believe. You can easily google for a list of such. Some larger section of verses are maintained in the Modern Bibles but with a note given that they are not found in the earliest manuscripts. (Mark 16:9-20) (John 7:53-8:11) And of course those early manuscripts would be the Alexandrian.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

This type of discussion always boils down to either the acceptance of the Textus Receptus or the Westcott/Hort text.

One must do their own study of this to come to a decision. And you should. What was the motive behind the KJV translators? What was the motive behind Westcott and Hort? Who were the translators of the KJV? Who was Westcott and Hort.

What Scripture is found in the KJV that is not found in the Modern Bibles? There are about 16, I believe. You can easily google for a list of such. Some larger section of verses are maintained in the Modern Bibles but with a note given that they are not found in the earliest manuscripts. (Mark 16:9-20) (John 7:53-8:11) And of course those early manuscripts would be the Alexandrian.

Lees

The Westcott/Hort text does not match the Alexandrian that are used in the Septuagint, you are making things up. I get it, you have a real hatred for anything that has ever come out of Egypt and surrender in praise any new texts that come out of Palestine, you distrust the early Greek church fathers and believe in the words of 10th century unbelievering Rabbis.

I use both the Masoretic and the LXX, I prefer the latter, but both are efficient enough.

I could care less what you prefer, but I don't believe your wild theory that there was never a Greek translation of an original Hebrew and that the Apostles passed down a tradition that only Palestinian Jews have access to the OT books and any translation into greek is a filthy abomination.

I suggest you stop using the greek titles for OT books because that's an abomination