 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 4946
Location: Missouri
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: Comparing the “Masoretic text” with the “LXX” |
 |
|
Comparing the “Masoretic text” with the “LXX”
ONE-ON-ONE
This to be a debate between bigape & JB .
Please read the rules that only pertain to this forum.
You must deside who is to post the opening post.
When you do place the post in the same thread here just below my post!
My the best debater win!! 
Have fun,
Nobby
PS: I will go now to enter your names into this debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
Since you are the proponent of the KJV, I will allow you the first post.
God Bless my Brother.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigape
Ferret
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My first post, will be the one that got this started:
Someone had asked me......
| Quote: | “Why wasn’t the LXX used, when translating the KJV, when it is clear, that Jesus, Paul & others, quote from the LXX, while ministering to people?”
|
And I said......
You know, it seems like I have given an answer this question several times before(on other threads). But here it is agian.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) The reason the Masoretic text was used and not the Greek Septuagint(LXX), is because the Masoretic text, is a better translation:
(This is kind of like comparing the KJV with the NIV)
(2) And as for the reason we see so many examples of Bible writers, quoting from the Greek Septuagint, is because it was the version that most people read, 2000 years ago.
(Because it was written in Greek)
-??This could be one of the reasons why, God’s people were in such a mess, when Jesus came??-
--------------------------------------------------
What is interesting though, is that we don’t have any Bible record, of our Lord making this an issue:
(He very well may have:)
-But it wasn’t recorded in the Bible!- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
Thanks for the post. Before we move forward with this discussion, I want you to know that I am an easy going guy but sometimes my posts seem strong and I would like for you to be aware of that right from the start so if I seem gruff, please tell me.
Let the games begin
You stated
1) The reason the Masoretic text was used and not the Greek Septuagint(LXX), is because the Masoretic text, is a better translation:
You also stated:
(This is kind of like comparing the KJV with the NIV)
I will begin with the idea that I agree with and that is that the KJV is better than the NIV.
The other area on the other hand seems to be some what more difficult to buy. So I will address this first in the form of a question.
Why do you suggest that the Masoretic Text is better than the LXX?
The Disciples used the LXX as their Old Testament Writ. This idea seems to suggest that the New Testament is then inaccurate. Or is worse off than it should be. Through out the New Testament we see a flowing continuity between the writing of the LXX and the Dialog that the New Testament writers used. On the other hand if you compare the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament with the Scriptures of the New Testament, you see many inconsistencies.
In addition to this conflict in text we see the world claiming that the scriptures are contradictory. In what ways does this make the Masoretic Text a better text?
I would now like to give a few examples:
Example 1:
notice this passage from the Psalms that is quoted in the Book of Hebrews: "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, 'Sacrifice and offering thou hast not desired, but a body thou hast prepared for me'" (Heb. 10:5,6). In that passage, the writer is quoting from Psalm 40:6. If you look up Psalm 40:6 in your Bible, you will find that it reads: "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired; mine ears Thou hast opened."
That's not how writer of Hebrews quoted that verse, is it?
The Old Testaments doesn't say anything in Psalms about "a body Thou hast prepared for me." Is that not part of Scripture? If it isn't, why did the writer of Hebrews quote it as Scripture? If it is part of Scripture, what justification do we have for using a text that is different from what the apostles were using?
Example #2 . Such variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are fairly numerous. In fact, one of the cardinal teachings of Christianity turns on one of these variances. We have all read Matthew's quotation from Isaiah 7:14: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel'" (Matt. 1:22,23). What I did not realize until recently was that the Hebrew Masoretic text does not say, "the virgin shall be with child." It says, "the young woman shall be with child." No wonder the apostles and their disciples chose the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.
Unless you use the Revised Standard Version, if you look up Isaiah 7:14 in your Old Testament, you will probably find that it reads "virgin" instead of "young woman." That's because translators have fudged on their use of the Masoretic text in order to conform to the cardinal Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. But how honest is that? Can we ignore the Septuagint and treat it as "a translation full of errors," but then when one of those "errors" supports a major Christian doctrine, go over and borrow from it? Are we really seeking truth when we do that?
This will get the juices flowing.
Looking forward to your response.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigape
Ferret
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi JB
You asked.......
| Quote: | “Why do you suggest that the Masoretic Text is better than the LXX?”
|
Of course you asked me more questions than this, but this seems to be the most important one.
The way I see it, the “one factor”, that makes one text, “better” than another text, is how closely it copies the original autographs.
Now since the original autographs no longer exist, then it would seem impossible for either of us, to be able to prove our point.
But here are some factors to consider:
--------------------------------------------------
(1) -The fact that translating a document into another language forces the translators to be creative, in order to make it understandable to the reader.-
We clearly see this in the KJV: Because when the translators felt that they needed to add some words here and there, to make God’s Word more understandable to us, they came up with a great idea.
Every time they added a word, they italicized it. So that even hundreds of years later, we are able to clearly see which words they added.
I have said all of this because, the Masoretic Text, was written about 900 BC, in Hebrew.
(For all we know, the original autographs may have still been around at that time.)
While the Septuagint, was “translated” about 300 BC, from the original languages, into Greek.
Therefore this makes the “Masoretic Text” better, because it hadn’t already been translated.
--------------------------------------------------
(2) My second point, is going to be, somewhat less sophisticated, because it is going to be base upon assumption:
My assumption is, that 400 years ago, “the Church was better”.
What I mean is: I believe that 400 years ago, there was less Spiritual deception on the earth.
Jesus clearly taught, that as His return drew nearer, that there would be an increase of deception.
| Quote: | Matthew 24:3-5
V.3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
V.4 ¶ And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
V.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. |
Because of the explosion of deception, that we have been seeing, over the last 170 years or so, I am becoming more and more skeptical of anything that involves “man’s opinion”.
Can you believe, that before 1830 AD, no one had ever even heard of evolution, or Mormonism, or the JW’s etc, etc.
I have said all of this, because about 400 years ago, when Godly Christian men, were going about to translate the Bible into English, they did not choose the LXX, but they chose the “Masoretic Text”.
And as I have said before, “this is good enough for me”!
--------------------------------------------------
Now for the more difficult question........
(I can’t seem to find you asking it, in this post, but I figure that you will soon.)
| Quote: | | “If the LXX wasn’t as good as the “Masoretic Text”, why did Jesus & Paul & others, quote from it several times, in their ministry to the people of their time?” |
Boy, I don’t know.
But it might have something to do with the fact, that the LXX was written in Greek, and that Greek was the worlds official language back then.
I hope that I haven’t stolen any of your thunder.
See you later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
Your Comment:
(1) -The fact that translating a document into another language forces the translators to be creative, in order to make it understandable to the reader.-
Are you saying that the KJV is easy to read?
Your comment:
I have said all of this because, the Masoretic Text, was written about 900 BC, in Hebrew.
(For all we know, the original autographs may have still been around at that time.)
While the Septuagint, was “translated” about 300 BC, from the original languages, into Greek.
Therefore this makes the “Masoretic Text” better, because it hadn’t already been translated.
I think that you are missing something here.
If the Masoretic text existed before the LXX and it was superior then why didn't the disciples use it?
Actually, the LXX is much older than the Masoretic text. I would encourage you to go back a do some research on that point. Also the Masoretic text was was written with Judaism in mind and as we all know, the influences of theology affect our interpretation.
You suggested:
2) My second point, is going to be, somewhat less sophisticated, because it is going to be based upon assumption:
My assumption is, that 400 years ago, “the Church was better”.
What I mean is: I believe that 400 years ago, there was less Spiritual deception on the earth.
Jesus clearly taught, that as His return drew nearer, that there would be an increase of deception.
It is possible that it was better but history indicates that the Church performed many atrocities in the name of God, so I wouldn't be real confident in that and that wouldn't have any bearing upon my selection of a translation.
You suggested:
But it might have something to do with the fact, that the LXX was written in Greek, and that Greek was the worlds official language back then.
Actually, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Most of the world after the diaspora or dispersion, were forced to move to gentile lands and Greek became their language. We have no idea what the Hebrew text of that day was since we have no surviving copies just some fragments.
Your final comment:
I hope that I haven’t stolen any of your thunder.
BigApe, don't worry about my thunder, it is fine.
PS I will be looking forward to your next response and hopefully you can explain how you came to the conclusion that The Masoretic text is older.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigape
Ferret
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi JB
First you asked......
| Quote: | | “Are you saying that the KJV is easy to read?” |
Yes; It has never been a problem for me.
And I have a saved grandson, that is 8 years old, who doesn’t have any problem with it.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you remarked....
| Quote: | “Therefore this makes the “Masoretic Text” better, because it hadn’t already been translated.”
|
Again, yes: If by “better”, we mean “closer to what we think the original was”:
Remember, only the LORD knows, “exactly” what the original autographs said, because they are all gone:
(We simply have to trust Him, to have preserved His Bible for us.)
--------------------------------------------------
Your next comment, kind of disturbed me.....
In response to my statement, that.........
| Quote: | “My assumption is, that 400 years ago, “the Church was better”.
|
You responded with.......
| Quote: | “It is possible that it was better but history indicates that the Church performed many atrocities in the name of God, so I wouldn't be real confident in that and that wouldn't have any bearing upon my selection of a translation.”
|
Please inform me of “any atrocities”, that “the Church” performed, at any time in history.
--------------------------------------------------
Also you seemed confused, when I said that the “Masoretic Text” was older than the “LXX”.
Well I am the one, that was confused. Indeed the LXX, is as much as 1000 years older than the Masoretic Text. Please forgive, my mistake.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally:
You responded to my answer, as to why the Apostles, quoted from the LXX, even though it wasn’t the “best” copy of the Old Testament available to them;
I suggested.....
| Quote: | “It might have something to do with the fact, that the LXX was written in Greek, and that Greek was the worlds official language back then.”
|
You responded.......
| Quote: | “Actually, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Most of the world after the diaspora or dispersion, were forced to move to gentile lands and Greek became their language. We have no idea what the Hebrew text of that day was since we have no surviving copies just some fragments.”
|
As I was in study, I found an article in “www.septuagint.net”, that said......
| Quote: | “Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language.”
|
This would seem to support my theory, that the Apostles quoted from the LXX(the only Greek Old Testament available to them), because it was the common Bible used, in their time.
See you later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
I am not going to go off on a tangent in this debate in regards to the question of Christians atrocities in the reformation period. I think that it is important that we stay focused on the issue at hand.
You say that the KJV is the best translation. In recent years, many of the alleged contradictions of the KJV have been verified. Having said that would it not make sens that those translation that corrected these errors would be as accurate as the KJV?
Some contradictions:
Matthew 9:13 (KJV)
for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
NASB For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinner
13 πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν· ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Notice that in the Greek text there is no use of repentance. The KING JAMES WRITERS added this on their own.
Matthew 19:17
(KJV) Why callest thou me good?
(NASV) "Why are you asking me about what is good?"
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός· εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρει / τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.
Again the KJV buthcers the Greek text and adds to the meaning of the text
Matthew 25:13
(KJV) Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
(NASB) You do not know the day nor the hour.
γρηγορεῖτε οὖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν
WOW BigApe, the pile is getting bigger. Again your KJV seems to be broken. Look at all that they added to this text. The KJV seems to be more of a commentary than a Bible.
Mark 10:24
(KJV) how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
(NASB) how hard it is to enter the kingdom of
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἐθαμβοῦντο ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτοῖς· τέκνα, πῶς δύσκολόν ἐστιν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν·
BigApe, If I were to guess, I would say that the Church of that day was trying to raise money by making it seem evil. Notice how the KJV adds those who trust in riches.
Before we go to much further maybe you should reconsider your position because before I am finished many people will question whether they should even own a KJB.
I quoted just a few verses and with as little work I can produce many more.
BigApe, in each one of the quoted texts, the writers of the King James version added their interpretation. For you to say that the KJV is the most accurate is more than a little erroneous. I can provide many more texts that show KJV tampering of the holy writ.
Here is another thought.
It is one that you shouldn't take lightly.
Frank Zimmerman, a renown translator made some shocking comments in regards to the Masoretic text.
Here is what he said, "now with regards to the masoretic text itself, aside from the ketib and the qere, and aside from the variants that we have found,
for ourselves in the Hebrew manuscripts, the Hebrew text officially has no variant readings. But it is axiomatic that at one time the texts must have disagreed."
He asks, "What happened to these different readings"?
It was suggested by some that there wee different translations of the masoretic text which were in conflict with one another. So they had to go in to their translation and make changes.
So my questions to you are,
1.) "how did they know which one to choose as the accurate text"?
2.) If they were spirit led as you alleged, how could there be any errors?
This debate isn't over the value of the KJV but over it being the best translation and my friend so far your argument isn't doing the KJ only party any good.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigape
Ferret
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi again JB
You said.........
| Quote: | “I am not going to go off on a tangent in this debate in regards to the question of Christians atrocities in the reformation period. I think that it is important that we stay focused on the issue at hand.”
|
Well I contend, that this is not a tangent, because it speaks directly the main point that I am trying to make:
i.e. (400 years ago, Godly men, who were better Christians than ether you or I, made the decision, that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX, because they chose to use it, when translating the Bible into English.)
This continues to be my main point.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you seemed to change this challenge from one of, comparing the Masoretic Text the LXX, to comparing the KJV to the NASB
And you listed 4 verses of scripture, that you say, demonstrate how much better the NASB is, compared to the KJV.
In response to this argument, I will counter with just one verse:
1 John 5:7 (KJV)
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 John 5:7 (NASB)
For there are three that testify:
--------------------------------------------------
Then finally you quoted, the renown translator, Frank Zimmerman:
Now for me it is important, to check somebody out, before I start giving any credence to their opinion. So I went to the internet, and searched for Frank Zimmerman, the renown translator. I couldn’t find him(unless of course he is also a famous pianist).
“Wow”
--------------------------------------------------
Then you closed with this statement......
| Quote: | “This debate isn't over the value of the KJV but over it being the best translation and my friend so far your argument isn't doing the KJ only party any good.”
|
You are right, you have gotten off track.
--------------------------------------------------
Your challenge to me, was to prove that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX.
And so far, I seem to be doing it.
See you later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
You are right, I did lose focus. For that I apologize.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
You said:
Your challenge to me, was to prove that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX.
And so far, I seem to be doing it.
No you are not.
I haven't seen any evidence of its superiority. You know why? Because there isn't any.
(Fact)
Did you know that the Masoretic text was written for Judaizers and not Christians and that there is ample evidence that much of the Trinitarian idea that the Jews opposed was obscured or even removed? As a matter of fact there were times when they would change the placement of verses which changed the context, to support their belief rather than accept Christ as the Messiah?
Since the KJV boasts of its use of the Masoretic text, which by the way had Catholic influence, we see a rising problem. We do in fact need to consider the KJV in this debate.
The Old testament KJV often times conflicts with the New Testament. As you know the New Testament was developed from a Greek dialog and of course your illustrious Old Testament (KJV) was developed from a Hebrew dialog which I pointed out earlier , was influenced by judaizers.
You suggested that we are much more corrupt today than those of the reformation. Maybe that is true. But you would have to provide evidence and not opinion to allow it as standing evidence in this debate.
But let me ask you another question. If they were less corrupt than us does that mean that the Disciples were less corrupt than them (meaning those of the reformation period)?
If you say they are then you must also say that the Disciples choice of the LXX was less corrupt than your use of the Masoretic *(KJV).
BigApe. I may have gone off on a tangent and for that I apologize. But, some how you believe that you have offered strong evidence for the Masoretic text which in fact you haven't offered a bit of supporting evidence.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigape
Ferret
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi JB
In my last response, I said.......
| Quote: | “Your challenge to me, was to prove that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX.
And so far, I seem to be doing it.”
|
Then you said........
| Quote: | “I haven't seen any evidence of its superiority. You know why? Because there isn't any.”
|
Your response reminded me, of something, that I had started to forget:
Over the last few days, the Lord has reminded me, that when it comes to my faith in the Bible, I don’t need to give you(or anyone else), any proof.
--------------------------------------------------
This has been an interesting experience debating with you, and because of where it has brought me, my faith is stronger than ever before.
What I am talking about, is how our conversations back and forth, has challenged me to remember, “what I am” and “where I came from”.
--------------------------------------------------
I am just a plain and simple Bible believing Christian, and the Lord has repeatedly, delivered from Satan’s lies about God and the Bible........
| Quote: | Colossians 2:8
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
|
--------------------------------------------------
Through this experience, the LORD has reminded me, of the great value of “simply believing Him”, regardless of what the world is saying.
For me that means, believing His Word, regardless of anything, anybody says about it.
--------------------------------------------------
I sincerely wish you well, but the debate is over.
As for the winner, I am willing to call it a draw, but that doesn’t really matter to me.
But as for my walk with the Lord, believe me, I am a big winner.
Looking forward to crossing swords with you again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigApe,
I don't blame you for bowing out on this one.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 4946
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bigape & JB I've been following your debate & believe me you are both winners. You has a very good clean debate in which I enjoyed reading!
Thank You guys!
Nobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
