The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,558
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Was the LXX translated from the OT Hebrew Canon by OT Jews before Christ?

Is the Masoretic Text a late creation of the Scattered Jews after Christ?

Are Masoretic Jews Christian or non-Christian?

Simple questions...

Conclusion:

The LXX is the Bible of Christ and the Apostles...

The Masoretic Text is a creation of post-Apostolic non-Christians...

I choose the pre-Apostolic Bible of the Apostles and Christ...

You are free to choose the post-Apostolic re-written OT of the non-Christian Masoretic Jews...

We live in a free country!


Arsenios
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
142
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Was the LXX translated from the OT Hebrew Canon by OT Jews before Christ?

Is the Masoretic Text a late creation of the Scattered Jews after Christ?

Are Masoretic Jews Christian or non-Christian?

Simple questions...

Conclusion:

The LXX is the Bible of Christ and the Apostles...

The Masoretic Text is a creation of post-Apostolic non-Christians...

I choose the pre-Apostolic Bible of the Apostles and Christ...

You are free to choose the post-Apostolic re-written OT of the non-Christian Masoretic Jews...

We live in a free country!
Certainly we are free to choose what we prefer. I wouldn't take that away from you, or anyone. But for argument about which is preferable, to others, I would state that I disagree that the Masoretic text is inferior as a creation of nonchristian Jews who were post-Apostolic. The writers, who were scribes, did not pull it out of thin air, there were Hebrew scriptures in existence when these copies, from the scriptures of the same language, were written down, and since then those much older manuscripts were lost or have perished, while these Masoretic texts continued to be copied. There is certainly credibility to them. The Septuagint texts may have been the only copies of Scriptures available to the earliest Christians, and so they, Apostles and other early Christian fathers, used those, and we don't know if they had any other texts to choose from. I don't think there were problems from the passages from the Septuagint that were referred to. But there sure are very questionable passage translations in other places. Lifespans shown in genealogies show disagreement with the other texts and certainly would be seen as artificial constructions in those places, and there is some contradiction in places. This is not saying the Masoretic is perfect throughout, it is a better approach to refer to both for concluding what originally written scriptures, in the original manuscripts written by men chosen to write from the inspiration of God, which are since lost after copies were made and made again, actually said.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
9,784
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The LXX is the Bible of Christ and the Apostles...

ZERO substantiation for that. It MAY be that when using Greek (and Jesus and the Apostles probably did not typically do so), they used the LXX translation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them accepting everything that the Egyptian Greek-speaking Jews had translated into Greek.

Similarly, the original KJV English had a lot of books in it that modern American Baptists do not regard as Scripture, but Billy Graham used the KJV. Because a Baptist minister preferred to not use the Hebrew and Greek (both of which he knew although not as well as English) but rather to read an English translation, does that prove ergo American Baptist accept all the books contained in the 1611 AV? Of course not, that's absurd. Well.... apply that to some Hebrews who, when using Greek, used the common Greek translation. Same/same.

And similarly, Luther's translation had one MORE book in it than post-Trent Catholic Bibles.... and until a century ago, Lutherans typically used his translation (the German having been translated into most of the languages Christians spoke/read). Does that mean that ERGO Lutherans accepted all the books in Luther's translation? Of course not, that's absurd. Well....


I choose the pre-Apostolic Bible of the Apostles and Christ...

IMO, your faith would be greatly enriched if you accepted the NT in your Bible; that you don't accept anything written after Easter IMO greatly hinders your faith.



We live in a free country!

Yup. No books are banned here. No books are removed from anything, not in the USA and most nations of the world.




.


Arsenios
[/QUOTE]
 
Top Bottom