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

[NathanH83]

I am saying Origen's translation is the oldest copy of the so called 'Septuagint'. Origen was from Alexandria. The Alexandrian method of Bible interpretation was always clouded with Hellenistic philosophy. Of whom Philo was a chief proponet.

Thus you always would have a conflict between the Palestinian Jews and the Alexandrian Jews. A conflict between the Alexandrian text and the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.

The claim of any early church fathers to the existence of the Septuagint only means they believed the lie. There is no Septuagint. There is only Alexandrian manuscripts. The idea of a Septuagint is based upon the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'. It was created to give credence to the Alexandrian texts.

It is most likely that what is called the Septuagint is nothing but Origen's translation of the Old Testament.

Lees

You’re not making sense. Jewish historians and Church fathers who PRE-DATE the time of Origen wrote about the Hebrew Scriptures being translated from Hebrew into Greek by 70 interpreters during the reign of Ptolemy II, which was about 250 BC. Origen lived in the 200’s AD. You know the difference between BC and AD don’t you? You’re not making sense. Origen didn’t live during the days of Ptolemy II.

Are you saying that the original Septuagint NEVER existed? Or are you saying that it just doesn’t exist TODAY?

Because if it NEVER existed, then what in the world are all these Jews and Christians talking about? And why should I believe your narrative over theirs? The original Septuagint was WIDELY attested to by Jews and Christians BEFORE the time of Origen. But you want me to believe Origen invented it? That doesn’t make sense.

Besides, what does this have to do with my original question? I was talking about the flood being 5,000 years ago instead of 4,400 years ago. And not JUST because the Septuagint says so, but also because of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus, and a number of other evidences. This question isn’t all about the Septuagint, you know.

 

[Andrew]

First of all, I don't need to find it as it is not there. There is nothing in comparing (Is. 61:1-2) and (Luke 4:18-19) that is word for word. Jesus could easily add 'recovery of sight to the blind' to be included in "to proclaim liberty to the captives" and "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." He being God in the flesh can do that. It's His Book. Just like He didn't even finish quoting the verses. Why? Because He knew what part pertained to His first coming.

No need to create some imaginary Septuagint and make Jesus's words fit perfectly to an Old Testament verse.

Second of all, you continue to mistake what I have said. There is no Septuagint. The only proof for the existence of the Septuagint is the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'. Manuscripts do exist which are claimed to be copies of the so called Septuagint. But they are not. They are just Alexandrian manuscripts. The fable of the 'letter of Aristeas' was created, no doubt, to give credence to the Alexandrian Texts due to the conflict between the Jews manuscripts in Palestine and those in Egypt.

Therefore, 'recovery of sight to the blind' is not in the Masoretic Text. So it doesn't need to be added there.

Lees

What old testament scriptures did the gentiles read in the early churches and how could they if they didn't know Hebrew? The ante-nicene church fathers wrote a lot about them.

 

[NathanH83]

First of all, I don't need to find it as it is not there. There is nothing in comparing (Is. 61:1-2) and (Luke 4:18-19) that is word for word. Jesus could easily add 'recovery of sight to the blind' to be included in "to proclaim liberty to the captives" and "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." He being God in the flesh can do that. It's His Book. Just like He didn't even finish quoting the verses. Why? Because He knew what part pertained to His first coming.

No need to create some imaginary Septuagint and make Jesus's words fit perfectly to an Old Testament verse.

Second of all, you continue to mistake what I have said. There is no Septuagint. The only proof for the existence of the Septuagint is the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'. Manuscripts do exist which are claimed to be copies of the so called Septuagint. But they are not. They are just Alexandrian manuscripts. The fable of the 'letter of Aristeas' was created, no doubt, to give credence to the Alexandrian Texts due to the conflict between the Jews manuscripts in Palestine and those in Egypt.

Therefore, 'recovery of sight to the blind' is not in the Masoretic Text. So it doesn't need to be added there.

Lees

I can also say “the titanic never existed”

That doesn’t change the facts of history.

But don’t believe history. Believe me. The titanic never existed.

Your claim that the Septuagint never existed is just as ridiculous.

 

[Andrew]

I can also say “the titanic never existed”

That doesn’t change the facts of history.

But don’t believe history. Believe me. The titanic never existed.

Your claim that the Septuagint never existed is just as ridiculous.

The hot pocket I ate last week never existed, must have been my imagination

 

[Lees]

What old testament scriptures did the gentiles read in the early churches and how could they if they didn't know Hebrew? The ante-nicene church fathers wrote a lot about them.

If they didn't know Hebrew they couldn't. They would be dependent on the Christian Jews to translate.

The so called 'Septuagint' was not supposedly written during the days of the Church. It was supposedly written around 250 B.C.

In other words, in 250 B.C. there was no 'early church'.

The Septuagint was supposedly written for Greek speaking Jews having access to their Old Testament.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I can also say “the titanic never existed”

That doesn’t change the facts of history.

But don’t believe history. Believe me. The titanic never existed.

Your claim that the Septuagint never existed is just as ridiculous.

That is not true. We know the Titanic existed. It can be presented.

Where is the Septuagint? Present it?

Lees

 

[Lees]

You’re not making sense. Jewish historians and Church fathers who PRE-DATE the time of Origen wrote about the Hebrew Scriptures being translated from Hebrew into Greek by 70 interpreters during the reign of Ptolemy II, which was about 250 BC. Origen lived in the 200’s AD. You know the difference between BC and AD don’t you? You’re not making sense. Origen didn’t live during the days of Ptolemy II.

Are you saying that the original Septuagint NEVER existed? Or are you saying that it just doesn’t exist TODAY?

Because if it NEVER existed, then what in the world are all these Jews and Christians talking about? And why should I believe your narrative over theirs? The original Septuagint was WIDELY attested to by Jews and Christians BEFORE the time of Origen. But you want me to believe Origen invented it? That doesn’t make sense.

Besides, what does this have to do with my original question? I was talking about the flood being 5,000 years ago instead of 4,400 years ago. And not JUST because the Septuagint says so, but also because of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus, and a number of other evidences. This question isn’t all about the Septuagint, you know.

You're talking about the 'Letter of Aristeas' which is fraudulent and full of lies. It is the only source of proof for any Septuagint.

There never was any 'Septuagint'. Only a fake story to add credence to the Alexandrian manuscripts.

All these Jews and Christians are talking about a lie purported by the Alexandrian Jews to add credence to the Alexandrian manuscripts.

You can believe whoever you want. Origens translation of the Old Testament in his Hexapla is the oldest known copy of the so called Septuagint. I'm amazed that you and others never brought that up when I asked many times where the oldest known copy of the Septuagint was. I have a feeling you and others knew but knew also the implication of such admittance. The Septuagint is nothing but Origens translation of the Old Testaement into Greek. And Origen's translation would have been around 200 A.D. Not 250 B.C. And Origen was, lets say, questionable.

Well, myself, I wouldn't trust the so called Septuagint to support anything. If you have other evidences for the dating of the flood, that's fine.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

If they didn't know Hebrew they couldn't. They would be dependent on the Christian Jews to translate.

The so called 'Septuagint' was not supposedly written during the days of the Church. It was supposedly written around 250 B.C.

In other words, in 250 B.C. there was no 'early church'.

The Septuagint was supposedly written for Greek speaking Jews having access to their Old Testament.

Lees

So you are King James Only?
Well here is the preface IN the original KJV 1611..
If you still have doubt about the existence of the greek translation after reading this then consider your King James imaginary along with it.

"While God would be knowen onely in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideons fleece onely, and all the earth besides was drie; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrewe, one and the same originall in Hebrew was sufficient. But when the fulnesse of time drew neere, that the Sunne of righteousnesse, the Sonne of God should come into the world, whom God ordeined to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew onely, but also of the Greeke, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then loe, it pleased the Lord to stirre up the spirit of a Greeke Prince (Greeke for descent and language) even of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into Greeke. This is the translation of the Seventie Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jewes by vocall"

 

[Lees]

So you are King James Only?
Well here is the preface IN the original KJV 1611..
If you still have doubt about the existence of the greek translation after reading this then consider your King James imaginary along with it.

"While God would be knowen onely in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideons fleece onely, and all the earth besides was drie; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrewe, one and the same originall in Hebrew was sufficient. But when the fulnesse of time drew neere, that the Sunne of righteousnesse, the Sonne of God should come into the world, whom God ordeined to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew onely, but also of the Greeke, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then loe, it pleased the Lord to stirre up the spirit of a Greeke Prince (Greeke for descent and language) even of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into Greeke. This is the translation of the Seventie Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jewes by vocall"

The King James Version I believe to be the best. Does that make me KJV only? I suppose.

You continue to ignore what I have said. The Septuagint is imaginary. The Alexandrian manuscripts do exist.

Just because the translators of the KJV were equally deceived by the fraudulent story of the Septuagint proves nothing. Did it affect their translation? Of course not. Which is why there is such difference and antagonism between the KJV and the modern versions.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

That is not true. We know the Titanic existed. It can be presented.

Where is the Septuagint? Present it?

Lees

How do you know it’s really the Titanic? Does it still have “Titanic” painted on the side? Maybe it’s another shipwreck. Maybe it’s a counterfeit ship that some Alexandrian put there and claimed it to be the Titanic!

Come on man, this is nonsense.

 

[NathanH83]

That is not true. We know the Titanic existed. It can be presented.

Where is the Septuagint? Present it?

Lees

Where is the original book of Genesis Moses wrote with his hand? Present it.

Dude, seriously? We don’t have the originals. We just have later copies. Same is true of the Septuagint. Seriously?

 

[NathanH83]

You're talking about the 'Letter of Aristeas' which is fraudulent and full of lies. It is the only source of proof for any Septuagint.

There never was any 'Septuagint'. Only a fake story to add credence to the Alexandrian manuscripts.

All these Jews and Christians are talking about a lie purported by the Alexandrian Jews to add credence to the Alexandrian manuscripts.

You can believe whoever you want. Origens translation of the Old Testament in his Hexapla is the oldest known copy of the so called Septuagint. I'm amazed that you and others never brought that up when I asked many times where the oldest known copy of the Septuagint was. I have a feeling you and others knew but knew also the implication of such admittance. The Septuagint is nothing but Origens translation of the Old Testaement into Greek. And Origen's translation would have been around 200 A.D. Not 250 B.C. And Origen was, lets say, questionable.

Well, myself, I wouldn't trust the so called Septuagint to support anything. If you have other evidences for the dating of the flood, that's fine.

Lees

Where’s the proof that the letter of Aristeas is fraudulent and full of lies? Present your evidence.

Where’s your proof that the Septuagint didn’t exist prior to Origen? Present it.

Justin Martyr talked about the Greek Septuagint. He defended it as the accurate translation of the Bible. And Justin died about 160 AD, which is more than two decades before Origen was born about 185 AD. But you think Origen authored it and it didn’t exist before him? Really? Then how did Justin Martyr know about it? Did Origen hop into Doc Brown’s DeLorean and travel back in time and hand his translation to Justin Martyr? Because there’s got to be quite a bit of time traveling going on for your ridiculous theory to be true.


I’m not so sure Origen could generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to make your nonsensical theory true.

 

[NathanH83]

The King James Version I believe to be the best. Does that make me KJV only? I suppose.

You continue to ignore what I have said. The Septuagint is imaginary. The Alexandrian manuscripts do exist.

Just because the translators of the KJV were equally deceived by the fraudulent story of the Septuagint proves nothing. Did it affect their translation? Of course not. Which is why there is such difference and antagonism between the KJV and the modern versions.

Lees

I love how you’re now smarter than the best Bible Scholars, Linguists, and Theologians in all of England in the early 1600’s.

 

[Lees]

How do you know it’s really the Titanic? Does it still have “Titanic” painted on the side? Maybe it’s another shipwreck. Maybe it’s a counterfeit ship that some Alexandrian put there and claimed it to be the Titanic!

Come on man, this is nonsense.

As I said, the Titanic can be presented.

Present the Septuagint.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

As I said, the Titanic can be presented.

Present the Septuagint.

Lees

Present the original Hebrew

 

[Lees]

Where is the original book of Genesis Moses wrote with his hand? Present it.

Dude, seriously? We don’t have the originals. We just have later copies. Same is true of the Septuagint. Seriously?

We don't have the originals. I have already said that.

Concerning the Bible, we have books, writings, that are considered inspired by God. His Word. We have manuscripts, versions, and copies of these books from which is determined what was in the originals.

Same is not true concerning the Septuagint. With the Septuagint you first of all have a lie created in it's formation, in it's translation, the so called 'Letter of Aristeas'. It is given a false date 250 B.C. also, so as to give it more authority as the oldest. That is the only evidence for the Septuagint. And it has been proven to be fraudulent.

The Septuagint is nothing more than the Alexandrian texts which come out of Egypt. Which is in conflict with the Masoretic Text which comes out of Palestine. The so called Septuagint is probably just Origen's translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which is the oldest copy of any said 'Septuagint'.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Where’s the proof that the letter of Aristeas is fraudulent and full of lies? Present your evidence.

Where’s your proof that the Septuagint didn’t exist prior to Origen? Present it.

Justin Martyr talked about the Greek Septuagint. He defended it as the accurate translation of the Bible. And Justin died about 160 AD, which is more than two decades before Origen was born about 185 AD. But you think Origen authored it and it didn’t exist before him? Really? Then how did Justin Martyr know about it? Did Origen hop into Doc Brown’s DeLorean and travel back in time and hand his translation to Justin Martyr? Because there’s got to be quite a bit of time traveling going on for your ridiculous theory to be true.


I’m not so sure Origen could generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to make your nonsensical theory true.

ARISTEAS, LETTER OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

You can google quite easily the many false claims of the 'Letter of Aristeas'. You won't find hardly any who believe it's story entirely.

Yet, amazingly, Christians, even many solid scholars, hold to this lie.

9. What is the Septuagint? – Samuel C. Gipp Th.D.

samgipp.com

The Septuagint never existed as described in the 'Letter of Aristeas'. The proof is that there is no Septuagint. We do have the Alexandrian Text which is all the Septuagint really is. It's earliest existence is Origins translation of the Old Testament in his Hexapla.

I didn't say Origen originated the false story of the Septuagint. I have said his translation of the Old Testament in the Hexapla is the oldest known work identified as the Septuagint. But it is really just his translation. It is really just the Alexandrian Text which is always in conflict with the Jews of Palestine and the Masoretic Text.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Present the original Hebrew

I have a Bible in whose Old Testament comes from the Masoretic Text.

Present your Septuagint.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

ARISTEAS, LETTER OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

You can google quite easily the many false claims of the 'Letter of Aristeas'. You won't find hardly any who believe it's story entirely.

Yet, amazingly, Christians, even many solid scholars, hold to this lie.

9. What is the Septuagint? – Samuel C. Gipp Th.D.

samgipp.com

The Septuagint never existed as described in the 'Letter of Aristeas'. The proof is that there is no Septuagint. We do have the Alexandrian Text which is all the Septuagint really is. It's earliest existence is Origins translation of the Old Testament in his Hexapla.

I didn't say Origen originated the false story of the Septuagint. I have said his translation of the Old Testament in the Hexapla is the oldest known work identified as the Septuagint. But it is really just his translation. It is really just the Alexandrian Text which is always in conflict with the Jews of Palestine and the Masoretic Text.

Lees

You’re not making logical sense. How did Origen author the Septuagint when he wasn’t even born yet?

 

[Andrew]

I have a Bible in whose Old Testament comes from the Masoretic Text.

Present your Septuagint.

Lees

No, you have an english interpreted translation of a hybrid composition of the Leningrad Codex mixed with some of the Latin Vulgate portions based in the Vetus Latinus versions of Alexandrian Greek and other Greek translations which were translated into Latin.