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

[NathanH83]

What do you think?

 

[Andrew]

Pretty close, that would also match up with Sumerien account of the deluge 2900 BC.
Since all of the worldly pagan flood myths originated at the Tower of Babel after a very real flood, the Hebrews were the only ones to have the correct version, although they didn't any writing system at the time, people assume that the Hebrews copied from the Sumerien version. This also explains all pagan idolatry that made as far as Tibet and even to the Americas, the Mayans and aztecs also had a flood story.

 

[NathanH83]

“Therefore, because it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the original, unadulterated Hebrew scriptures, it is reasonable for us to use that version for this chronicle - especially since it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the whole world, and it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles and disciples of Christ.”

-Eusebius’ Chronicon

Eusebius: Chronicle (5) - translation

A translation of Eusebius' Chronicle, Book 1, pages 71-131 (Schoene)

www.attalus.org

 

[atpollard]

What do you think?

I think the WHEN is less relevant than the WHO and WHY.

 

[NathanH83]

I think the WHEN is less relevant than the WHO and WHY.

Ah, so my question is irrelevant, but your response is.

The date of the flood is extremely relevant to a variety of issues.

 

[Lees]

“Therefore, because it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the original, unadulterated Hebrew scriptures, it is reasonable for us to use that version for this chronicle - especially since it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the whole world, and it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles and disciples of Christ.”

-Eusebius’ Chronicon

Eusebius: Chronicle (5) - translation

A translation of Eusebius' Chronicle, Book 1, pages 71-131 (Schoene)

www.attalus.org

So your date of the flood is based upon the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

 

[Andrew]

So your date of the flood is based upon the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

Why not?

 

[Lees]

Why not?

I would first like an answer to my question. Then the answer as to why or why not can be asked. So, is NathanH83 basing his date of the flood on the Septuagint? I ask because the statement in post #(3) is a quote and not his.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

I would first like an answer to my question. Then the answer as to why or why not can be asked. So, is NathanH83 basing his date of the flood on the Septuagint? I ask because the statement in post #(3) is a quote and not his.

Lees

If you don't mind me answering that question, yes Nathan advocates the Septuagint as being a more accurate translation of an older and more genuine Hebrew than that of the Masoretic

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I have heard both that the Septuagint is an older, more accurate translation and that it was translated later so that Jesus and the apostles would not have had it available, yet the references to the OT in our bibles don't match what is in our OT, but supposedly match the Septuagint. If the Septuagint was written prior to Jesus' advent on this planet, and if Jesus and the apostles were using it, then it is good enough for me. Ultimately I don't think any of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are impacted by choice of these texts.

 

[Lees]

If you don't mind me answering that question, yes Nathan advocates the Septuagint as being a more accurate translation of an older and more genuine Hebrew than that of the Masoretic

I really don't like trying to discuss through third and fourth parties. Which is what would take place if I answer your question. In other words, NathanH83 has given a quote from another. In that quote I have questions. That is two parties already. Then in answering your question, I would have to assume you know NathanH83's mind concerning the information in the quote and his view. It is much to confusing.

So, I will address your question if you present what NathanH83 presented as yours and what you belive. Then my discussion would be with you.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I have heard both that the Septuagint is an older, more accurate translation and that it was translated later so that Jesus and the apostles would not have had it available, yet the references to the OT in our bibles don't match what is in our OT, but supposedly match the Septuagint. If the Septuagint was written prior to Jesus' advent on this planet, and if Jesus and the apostles were using it, then it is good enough for me. Ultimately I don't think any of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are impacted by choice of these texts.

I and most have heard the same.

But, where is this so called Septuagint that everyone believes in and translates from? Where is the oldest known complete Old Testament translation of the Hebrew into Greek that we call the Septuagint?

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

I would first like an answer to my question. Then the answer as to why or why not can be asked. So, is NathanH83 basing his date of the flood on the Septuagint? I ask because the statement in post #(3) is a quote and not his.

Lees

Yes, my date for the flood is based upon the Greek Septuagint. But it’s also based upon a number of other evidences and reasonings as well. All that combined is why I think the Septuagint has the correct date for the flood. About 5,000 years ago (3,000 BC).

 

[NathanH83]

I really don't like trying to discuss through third and fourth parties. Which is what would take place if I answer your question. In other words, NathanH83 has given a quote from another. In that quote I have questions. That is two parties already. Then in answering your question, I would have to assume you know NathanH83's mind concerning the information in the quote and his view. It is much to confusing.

So, I will address your question if you present what NathanH83 presented as yours and what you belive. Then my discussion would be with you.

Lees

Andrew has seen my videos and we’ve discussed a lot of things between the two of us. So Andrew knows a lot of what I believe. Sorry for not getting back on this sooner. Been busy recently.

 

[atpollard]

Ah, so my question is irrelevant, but your response is.

“Irrelevant” is a term YOU selected.
I never made such a claim.

What I said was …

WHY there was a flood and and WHO created the flood is MORE IMPORTANT than the exact date of the flood.

… and I stand by my statement of fact. The story of Noah is primarily a story of Who and Why rather than When.

 

[NathanH83]

“Irrelevant” is a term YOU selected.
I never made such a claim.

What I said was …

WHY there was a flood and and WHO created the flood is MORE IMPORTANT than the exact date of the flood.

… and I stand by my statement of fact. The story of Noah is primarily a story of Who and Why rather than When.

Who?
What?
Where?
When?
Why?
How?

All are important. All are relevant.

 

[Lees]

Yes, my date for the flood is based upon the Greek Septuagint. But it’s also based upon a number of other evidences and reasonings as well. All that combined is why I think the Septuagint has the correct date for the flood. About 5,000 years ago (3,000 BC).

Andrew has seen my videos and we’ve discussed a lot of things between the two of us. So Andrew knows a lot of what I believe. Sorry for not getting back on this sooner. Been busy recently.

No problem. My questions have more to do with the Septuagint than the flood, or I should say the credibility of the Septuagint. I don't want to be perceived as derailing the thread away from the flood subject. But I myself don't trust the so called 'Septuagint' as evidence.

In the quote you presented from Eusebius he makes 3 absolute and dogmatic claims concerning the Septuagint. They are:

1.) "it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the originial"

2.) "it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ"

3.) "it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles"

Such dogmatic statements certainly reflect the Roman churches view and their method of creating doctrine. They say so, so it must be so. But I disagree. Where is it 'definitely established'? Who dictates it is the 'only version'? How do you know it is the 'only version' from the apostle's?

Also, where is this so called 'Septuagint' that everyone translates from? Where is the oldest known complete copy of the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

No problem. My questions have more to do with the Septuagint than the flood, or I should say the credibility of the Septuagint. I don't want to be perceived as derailing the thread away from the flood subject. But I myself don't trust the so called 'Septuagint' as evidence.

In the quote you presented from Eusebius he makes 3 absolute and dogmatic claims concerning the Septuagint. They are:

1.) "it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the originial"

2.) "it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ"

3.) "it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles"

Such dogmatic statements certainly reflect the Roman churches view and their method of creating doctrine. They say so, so it must be so. But I disagree. Where is it 'definitely established'? Who dictates it is the 'only version'? How do you know it is the 'only version' from the apostle's?

Also, where is this so called 'Septuagint' that everyone translates from? Where is the oldest known complete copy of the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

Does it make sense for Shem to have outlived his descendants? Is that consistent with the narrative of the Bible?

I made a video explaining my view on this. I can share it with you if you like. The Septuagint we have today isn’t perfect in every aspect. But I believe this is one thing that it gets right.

 

[NathanH83]

No problem. My questions have more to do with the Septuagint than the flood, or I should say the credibility of the Septuagint. I don't want to be perceived as derailing the thread away from the flood subject. But I myself don't trust the so called 'Septuagint' as evidence.

In the quote you presented from Eusebius he makes 3 absolute and dogmatic claims concerning the Septuagint. They are:

1.) "it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the originial"

2.) "it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ"

3.) "it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles"

Such dogmatic statements certainly reflect the Roman churches view and their method of creating doctrine. They say so, so it must be so. But I disagree. Where is it 'definitely established'? Who dictates it is the 'only version'? How do you know it is the 'only version' from the apostle's?

Also, where is this so called 'Septuagint' that everyone translates from? Where is the oldest known complete copy of the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

I think it’s important to understand that Eusebius attended the Council of Nicaea. He would have met church leaders from all over the world. He says they’ve all only approved of the Septuagint. This isn’t a Roman thing. In fact, not too long later the Roman church approved of the Latin Vulgate, which has a significantly different timeline, placing the flood about 4400 years ago. So the Roman church actually deviated from the numbers in the Septuagint, while the Eastern Orthodox churches stuck to the Septuagint.

 

[NathanH83]

Also, where is this so called 'Septuagint' that everyone translates from? Where is the oldest known complete copy of the 'Septuagint'?

Lees

The oldest copies of the Septuagint are Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. There’s many other copies of the Septuagint found as well. I know that many of our English translations today draw upon multiple sources for the Septuagint.

Keep in mind, there is not one single source text that the Hebrew is drawn upon either. They draw upon Hebrew Masoretic Texts such as the Leningrad Codex, Aleppo Codex, and the Ben Chayyim, as well as sources from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Modern versions also draw upon the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, even in the Old Testament. English translations don’t draw upon one single source Hebrew text. They don’t even draw upon only the Hebrew text, since they also look at Greek and Latin.