Masoretic Text Vs. The Septuagint

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
  • Pastor Steve Waldron, New Life of Albany - Albany, Ga
    No comparison. The MT is superior. Thanks for watching! Please subscribe and share! To contribute to New Life, please click the link below and press donate. Please check out our podcast link below. God bless!
    newlifeofalbany... | anchor.fm/stev...
    Also, please be aware that any comments over 2-3 sentences will be deleted at the moderator's discretion. Thank you for your understanding on this matter!

КОМЕНТАРІ • 36

  • @brucetepke8150
    @brucetepke8150 8 місяців тому +2

    Augustine wrote in his book, The City of God, why he strongly believed that the Septuagint is the preferred version to use. It's worth checking by anyone interested in the LXX.

  • @josephdunn1067
    @josephdunn1067 8 місяців тому

    I have had you pray for me and my family on several occasions and God has answered those prayers thank you Jesus! I’m coming to you once again asking if you could continue to pray for my parents and myself as well. I have been having a lot of stomach and bowel issues thank you so much! Hope you and your ministry is doing great! 😊

    • @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
      @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa  8 місяців тому +1

      Praying now friend

    • @josephdunn1067
      @josephdunn1067 8 місяців тому

      @@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa thank you so much you and your channel has been a tremendous great blessing thank you so much for the prayers they are extremely appreciated!

  • @BerniWright
    @BerniWright 8 місяців тому +3

    Isaiah 53:10 differs between MT and Lxx

    • @RayMack-xz7xg
      @RayMack-xz7xg 7 місяців тому

      Looking at the oldest available Greek fragments, partials, and codices, the Early Church overwhelmingly cited the Septuagint in the NT.

  • @larrymoore2571
    @larrymoore2571 5 місяців тому +1

    Yes, the Lxx has issues with numbering. Take into consideration the genealogy in Genesis five where Methuselah would have been 955 years old when the flood came yet lived to be 969 years old. Other issues such as Goliath's height of 4 cubits and a span (LXX Approx. 6'6") compared to the MT @ 6 cubits and a span (approx. 9'6). I do not trust the LXX that has also included the apocrypha as scripture.

  • @Reelworthy
    @Reelworthy 4 дні тому

    When the original Hebrew is lost, the MT being written in the original language is second to being almost 1,000 years late. LXX is closer to the Hebrew originals, translated without any possibility of bias against Jesus Christ.

  • @jayandrew87
    @jayandrew87 8 місяців тому

    If you find that list drop me a link. Would also like a list of places the AV translators went with an LXX reading in the OT.

  • @jamesowens4974
    @jamesowens4974 8 місяців тому +2

    The kjv translators wrote that the apostles used the lxx

    • @jamesowens4974
      @jamesowens4974 8 місяців тому

      And then mentioned the monk Jerome’s criticisms of it

    • @markgushue9482
      @markgushue9482 8 місяців тому

      Nope. Not in the translators to the readers at all.

    • @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
      @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa  8 місяців тому

      They weren’t infallible. They also were highly critical of it.

    • @jamesowens4974
      @jamesowens4974 8 місяців тому

      @@markgushue9482 they mentioned it I have it here

    • @jamesowens4974
      @jamesowens4974 8 місяців тому

      @@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa yet the used the Septuagint by using virgin in Isaiah 7:14

  • @tabletalk33
    @tabletalk33 8 днів тому

    Bottom line not examined here: Jews created BOTH the GOT (Greek Old Testament) and the MT. The only reason ever mentioned that Jews stopped using the GOT was because Christians (ethnic Jews and otherwise) were fond of using it (since the vast majority of them knew no Hebrew, and Greek was on a meteoric rise during the Hellenistic Age). What kind of excuse do Jewish traditionalists offer? Prejudice and sour grapes! How can a modern student of the Bible calmly accept this nonsensical, biased reasoning??
    Like the Jews of the Hellenistic Age, the Early Church had very good reason to use the Greek OT as a primary text because very few among Jews, and later, Christians, knew any Hebrew. As we know from history, even well before Christ, many Jews, especially in Alexandria were no longer speaking Hebrew. Mostly they spoke Aramaic and Greek (the lingua franca), and by ca. -250 to -150?, somebody made their pitch to get the Pentateuch translated in their dominant vernacular of the time, Greek, and they got it. In later years, the other books were gradually translated into Greek as well. No other language would have made any sense. Don't you like having the Bible translated into YOUR language, too? Any good Bible scholar will say that NO translation is perfect. I'm sure that is true of the Greek OT as well, but simply using the MT to the replace the Greek does not necessarily eliminate debate over the quality and accuracy of the OT text. Often, the Greek comes out actually looking BETTER than the MT Hebrew, especially if it agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then it's called a "superior reading." A lot of study Bibles, e.g., the ESV, utilize the LXX as a means of comparative textual analysis, and sometimes as an alternative reading.
    As for the Early Church, it could only grow using a GREEK based text. No other language could have done the job. There would have been no Christian Church or expansion of that Church without the Greek Bible! When Christian writers began their literary output, they CONTINUED to write in Greek. No controversy about THAT Greek.
    The fact that Jews eventually "closed ranks" on their OWN previous translation into Greek, a language that they had learned fluently enough to demand their holy scripture be translated into it well BEFORE the ministry of Jesus should not disqualify OUR use of it in favor of the MT, a text which was compiled well AFTER Jesus' ministry, and one which Christians DO have reason to consider with some suspicion.

  • @Freddy-Da-Freeloadah
    @Freddy-Da-Freeloadah 8 місяців тому

    Q: Did Jesus read the Septuagint? A guy led a prayer group this morning who insisted Septuagint was read in Synagogues in Jesus' day "That's what was available" he said. I don't see how that could be true...
    I THINK: the Septuagint was used as a Greek dictionary, but not scripture.
    IMHO

    • @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
      @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa  8 місяців тому +1

      Not in synagogues for sure in Israel.

    • @brianhaley4471
      @brianhaley4471 8 місяців тому

      No. Probably not even compiled in Jesus' day.
      God assigned the duty of preserving revelation to the priests only, unlike the Septuagint writers.; and wouldn't be read by Jesus or other Jews a synagogue. That the Apostles quoted from it is also another hopeful, but false liberal claim. www.floydnolenjonesministries.com/files/135786321.pdf (see comparisons, chap 3, pg. 43)

    • @RayMack-xz7xg
      @RayMack-xz7xg 7 місяців тому

      Archaeologists uncovered fragments (from the Septuagint) during a dig in a 2nd century BC synagogue in Egypt.

    • @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
      @NewLifeOfAlbanyGa  7 місяців тому +1

      Yes, I’ve done a video listing every BC papyri of the OT in Greek.@@RayMack-xz7xg

    • @RayMack-xz7xg
      @RayMack-xz7xg 7 місяців тому

      @@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Interesting. If you wish to, what is the name of your video here on YT (if it's here)?

  • @hp7093
    @hp7093 8 місяців тому +2

    Text us recep Tus = KJV = WINNER