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

[NathanH83]

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

You assume that the Septuagint translators made the changes. It doesn’t even dawn on you to think that maybe it was actually the Jews who made changes to the Hebrew text.

 

[NathanH83]

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

Even the KJV sides with the Septuagint.

Can you explain why the KJV includes an extra Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah in Luke 3:36?

The Greek Septuagint contains this mistake in Genesis 10 and 11. But the Hebrew doesn’t.

So why does the King James version contain this mistake from the Greek Septuagint in Luke 3:36?

Because even the Majority Text repeats some of the mistakes found in the Septuagint. And since the KJV is translated from the Majority Text, then the KJV contains some of those mistakes as well.

So. I have a challenge for you. And that challenge is this:

Explain why the extra Cainan is in Luke 3:36.

 

[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

Unbelieving Rabbis? Try doing research on the faith of Westcott and Hort.

Lees

 

[Lees]

You assume that the Septuagint translators made the changes. It doesn’t even dawn on you to think that maybe it was actually the Jews who made changes to the Hebrew text.

I'm not sure what you mean.

We have the Hebrew that the Masoretic Text comes from. We don't have the Hebrew from where the so called Septuagint comes from that reflects these changes. We have only the Greek translation in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Even the KJV sides with the Septuagint.

Can you explain why the KJV includes an extra Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah in Luke 3:36?

The Greek Septuagint contains this mistake in Genesis 10 and 11. But the Hebrew doesn’t.

So why does the King James version contain this mistake from the Greek Septuagint in Luke 3:36?

Because even the Majority Text repeats some of the mistakes found in the Septuagint. And since the KJV is translated from the Majority Text, then the KJV contains some of those mistakes as well.

So. I have a challenge for you. And that challenge is this:

Explain why the extra Cainan is in Luke 3:36.

As to 'why' Cainan is in (Luke 3:36) the answer is that it is found and placed there by the translators who find it among the Majority Test.

You are calling it a 'mistake'. Not me.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

As to 'why' Cainan is in (Luke 3:36) the answer is that it is found and placed there by the translators who find it among the Majority Test.

You are calling it a 'mistake'. Not me.

Lees

Read Genesis 10 and 11. The extra Cainan isn’t there between Arphaxad and Shelah. But it’s there in Luke 3:36.

Why?

 

[Lees]

Read Genesis 10 and 11. The extra Cainan isn’t there between Arphaxad and Shelah. But it’s there in Luke 3:36.

Why?

Extra? OK. So what?

Again, your the one saying there is a mistake. Not me.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

I'm not sure what you mean.

We have the Hebrew that the Masoretic Text comes from. We don't have the Hebrew from where the so called Septuagint comes from that reflects these changes. We have only the Greek translation in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Lees

Jesus and the disciples had the Hebrew. When they side with the Septuagint, it becomes pretty obvious that the Septuagint sometimes better reflects the original Hebrew. That’s why early church fathers accused the Jews of altering the Hebrew text.

 

[NathanH83]

Extra? OK. So what?

Again, your the one saying there is a mistake. Not me.

Lees

So does the Cainan belong or doesn’t it? Does Genesis 10 and 11 get it right by omitting Cainan, or does Luke 3:36 get it right by including the extra Cainan?

Hello????

Either the extra Cainan belongs or it doesn’t.

You have two options:

1. You can accept that the extra Cainan doesn’t belong, and that the Septuagint wrongly added it to Genesis 10 and 11. Then you’d be saying Luke 3:36 is wrong for including it.

-or-

2. The extra Cainan DOES belong, Luke 3:36 gets it right, and the Septuagint gets it right in Genesis 10 and 11. But the Hebrew Masoretic gets it wrong for omitting it in Genesis 10 and 11.


It’s either one or the other.

Pick one.

 

[Lees]

So does the Cainan belong or doesn’t it? Does Genesis 10 and 11 get it right by omitting Cainan, or does Luke 3:36 get it right by including the extra Cainan?

Hello????

Either the extra Cainan belongs or it doesn’t.

You have two options:

1. You can accept that the extra Cainan doesn’t belong, and that the Septuagint wrongly added it to Genesis 10 and 11. Then you’d be saying Luke 3:36 is wrong for including it.

-or-

2. The extra Cainan DOES belong, Luke 3:36 gets it right, and the Septuagint gets it right in Genesis 10 and 11. But the Hebrew Masoretic gets it wrong for omitting it in Genesis 10 and 11.


It’s either one or the other.

Pick one.

No, those are your options because you believe a mistake has been made and you believe there is a Septuagint. I don't.

(Gen. 10:22-24) is correct. (Gen. 11:11-13) is correct. (Luke 3:36) is correct.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Jesus and the disciples had the Hebrew. When they side with the Septuagint, it becomes pretty obvious that the Septuagint sometimes better reflects the original Hebrew. That’s why early church fathers accused the Jews of altering the Hebrew text.

You may as well believe the Masoretic Text has been altered by the Jews as you already believe in the myth of a Septuagint. And in the mythical 'letter of Aristeas'.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

You may as well believe the Masoretic Text has been altered by the Jews as you already believe in the myth of a Septuagint. And in the mythical 'letter of Aristeas'.

Lees

lol, there were a good handful of early ante-nicene church fathers who believed that the Christ-hating Jews altered the Hebrew and that the Septuagint was God's blessed word to the Church

 

[NathanH83]

No, those are your options because you believe a mistake has been made and you believe there is a Septuagint. I don't.

(Gen. 10:22-24) is correct. (Gen. 11:11-13) is correct. (Luke 3:36) is correct.

Lees

So explain how all three of them can be correct. Does Cainan belong or doesn’t it?

 

[Lees]

lol, there were a good handful of early ante-nicene church fathers who believed that the Christ-hating Jews altered the Hebrew and that the Septuagint was God's blessed word to the Church

Ah, yes. And those of Alexadria Egypt being the chief ones. And the Septuagint is not found anywhere except in the Alexandrian manuscripts and Origen's Hexapla. Does anyone smell a rat?

These church fathers you speak of were in constant debate with the Jews over Christ and the Scripture. The Jews would use the supposedly 'mistkaen quotes' in our New Testament of their Old Testament to mock them. What was the response of these church fathers? Origen's Hexapla and translation of the Old Testament. Origen wrote his Hexapla for the purpose of restoring the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament, to fit with the Jews Old Testament.

An easy fix? Much for these so called, 'church fathers' must be scrutinized. Origen being one of them. Again, there is conflict between the Alexanrian Hellenistic Jews of Egypt, who are given over to Greek philosophy, and the Palestinian Jews, who maintain the Hebrew Text.

Out of Alexandria comes this so called Septuagint that no one can reproduce from the Hebrew. This Septuagint is in contrast with the New Testament quotes from the Christian Jews in Palestine. This Septuagint is nothing but the Alexandrian Text. Yet just because many of these New Testament quotes in the Alexandrian Texts fit the Jews Old Testament, it is to be accepted above the Textus Receptus. Is it not easy to see that Origen simply made the quotes fit in his translation of the Jews Old Testament into Greek? It is just his Greek translation. And he, Origen is from Alexandria Egypt.

And the sad thing is, most Christians today buy it. All modern Bibles of today are based on the Alexandrian Text. The Minority Text. It's not called minority for nothing. it doesn't use hardly any of the manuscripts available. And the so called Septuagint is nothing but the Minority Texts.

So, who did the altering? Lauging out loud and to myself. If you want a complete Bible, get a King James Version. If you want a Bible that has been added to and taken from, get any of your Modern Versions.

Don't believe me. Just don't believe the lie. Do your homework.

Lees

 

[Lees]

So explain how all three of them can be correct. Does Cainan belong or doesn’t it?

In my post #(130) I already told you. Why ask me again?

Lees

 

[Andrew]

Ah, yes. And those of Alexadria Egypt being the chief ones. And the Septuagint is not found anywhere except in the Alexandrian manuscripts and Origen's Hexapla. Does anyone smell a rat?

These church fathers you speak of were in constant debate with the Jews over Christ and the Scripture. The Jews would use the supposedly 'mistkaen quotes' in our New Testament of their Old Testament to mock them. What was the response of these church fathers? Origen's Hexapla and translation of the Old Testament. Origen wrote his Hexapla for the purpose of restoring the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament, to fit with the Jews Old Testament.

An easy fix? Much for these so called, 'church fathers' must be scrutinized. Origen being one of them. Again, there is conflict between the Alexanrian Hellenistic Jews of Egypt, who are given over to Greek philosophy, and the Palestinian Jews, who maintain the Hebrew Text.

Out of Alexandria comes this so called Septuagint that no one can reproduce from the Hebrew. This Septuagint is in contrast with the New Testament quotes from the Christian Jews in Palestine. This Septuagint is nothing but the Alexandrian Text. Yet just because many of these New Testament quotes in the Alexandrian Texts fit the Jews Old Testament, it is to be accepted above the Textus Receptus. Is it not easy to see that Origen simply made the quotes fit in his translation of the Jews Old Testament into Greek? It is just his Greek translation. And he, Origen is from Alexandria Egypt.

And the sad thing is, most Christians today buy it. All modern Bibles of today are based on the Alexandrian Text. The Minority Text. It's not called minority for nothing. it doesn't use hardly any of the manuscripts available. And the so called Septuagint is nothing but the Minority Texts.

So, who did the altering? Lauging out loud and to myself. If you want a complete Bible, get a King James Version. If you want a Bible that has been added to and taken from, get any of your Modern Versions.

Don't believe me. Just don't believe the lie. Do your homework.

Lees

That's odd because whenever any of the ante-nicene church fathers quoted scripture it was in agreement with the Septuagint sources. Find me a quote from any early ante-nicene Christian that comes from a protomasoretic, go find one of those early "Palestinian Christian Jews" for me.

 

[Lees]

That's odd because whenever any of the ante-nicene church fathers quoted scripture it was in agreement with the Septuagint sources. Find me a quote from any early ante-nicene Christian that comes from a protomasoretic, go find one of those early "Palestinian Christian Jews" for me.

What is odd?

What anti-nicene church fathers?

What Septuagint?

What is protomasoretic?

Sorry to offend your intelligence. Just simple questions.

Laughing out loud and to myself.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

What is odd?

What anti-nicene church fathers?

What Septuagint?

What is protomasoretic?

Sorry to offend your intelligence. Just simple questions.

Laughing out loud and to myself.

Lees

It's odd that fathers as early as Pauls very own appointed bishop of Rome (Clement of Rome) quoted the Septuagint or that the early church fathers in general quoted from "imaginary" scripture found in the Septuagint more so than they quoted the older books of the Bible.

You do know that hellenism was wide spread beyond Alexandria, Paul was born in the thick of it in Turkey, why do you think he was so familiar with the greek poetry and culture?

 

[NathanH83]

In my post #(130) I already told you. Why ask me again?

Lees

Post 130 explains nothing. All you said is “it’s correct, it’s correct, it’s correct.”


Ok? But HOW is it correct? Luke 3:36 includes the extra Canaan, but Genesis 10 and 11 exclude the extra Canaan. Why? Does the extra Canaan belong or doesn’t it?
Explain.

 

[Lees]

It's odd that fathers as early as Pauls very own appointed bishop of Rome (Clement of Rome) quoted the Septuagint or that the early church fathers in general quoted from "imaginary" scripture found in the Septuagint more so than they quoted the older books of the Bible.

You do know that hellenism was wide spread beyond Alexandria, Paul was born in the thick of it in Turkey, why do you think he was so familiar with the greek poetry and culture?

Give me the quote and where it is from. The term 'church fathers' does not equate with infallibility.

Alexandria was the capital and center of Hellenism. Hellenism being the acceptance of Greek culture and philosopical thought. Of which Alexandrian Jews embraced and attempted to merge Judism with it. Thus the conflict between the Palestinian Jews and the Jews of Alexandria.

And the myth of the 'Septuagint' comes out of Alexandria. It was created to give credence to the Alexandrian texts. Origen translated the Old Testament into Greek. His purpose was to change those Old Testament quotes in the New Testament to match with the Jewish manuscripts. Those oldest Alexandrian manuscripts are probably nothing but copies of Origen's Greek translation.

Answers to Your Bible Version Questions

Did God preserve His words? Or does my Bible contain errors? If you believe God preserved His words, where can you find them? History shows that there are two streams of Bible texts, and they are not the same. Obviously, both of them cannot be correct. Respected linguist David Daniels proves...

books.google.com

Lees