Originally Posted by Biblestudent

If the LXX did exist, I don't think the Jews, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the NT writers would use a Bible in the language of "dogs". What do you think?

But the NT was written in the language of "dogs," i.e. Greek. You're not an Aramaic nut are you?

"Furthermore, did the LXX contain the Apocrypha?" The LXX that we have today does, but its a big assumption to say that the LXX we have today is the Greek translation that the apostles would have used. I figure they must have had a Greek translation or made one, but it certainly isn't the LXX.

"If I remember right, Ruckman believes that the LXX was written by Origen in his fifth column of the hexapla." Origen was revising the LXX. He took the LXX and several other Greek translations,and in his 5th column came up with his own text that was a mixture of all of them, when he like one better than the other he put its text in the 5th column. This is probably where what we now call the LXX came from. Our now LXX is Origen's 5th column, but before Origen the LXX was not Origen's 5th column, but was the real LXX, assuming there was a real LXX, and there may not have been, but there definately was a Greek translation (perhaps not called the LXX maybe not even having a name) in the times of the apostles.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by jerry

Jerome lived around the same time as Origen - so that is no proof for a Greek OT existing before Christ.

Actually Jerome almost two centuries after Origen, so it is even less significant in terms of time-line.

Thanks for the Edersheim quote, apparently he had a pretty good fix on the issues, although I do not see that he placed it as a Josephus understanding.

Brandon, thanks for the explanation, it just sounded a bit different the way I first read it.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"] Actually Jerome almost two centuries after Origen, so it is even less significant in terms of time-line.

I could not remember when he lived - but I knew he did not live before Origen.

Thanks for the Edersheim quote, apparently he had a pretty good fix on the issues, although I do not see that he placed it as a Josephus understanding.

My mistake - I had read his quote several years ago, and must have remembered someone else discussing Josephus and thought it was the same quote. Sometimes I am good at remembering part of an issue, but not always the original source. Sorry about that.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by sophronismos

Paul .. quotes Habakkuk 1:5 "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you" as "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you" in Acts 13:41 ..KJVO nightmare. .

Soph.. You have put words into the mouth of Paul he never spoke. Paul never said "I am quoting Habakkuk", Paul spoke of the prophets.

Acts 13:40
Beware therefore, lest that come upon you,
which is spoken of in the prophets;

What Paul wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, built upon the foundation of scripture, including Habakkuk, and including the warnings of the prophet Isaiah, who calls out the warning to the despisers.

Habakkuk 1:5
Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously:
for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe,
though it be told you.

Isaiah 28:14
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men,
that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Isaiah 5:24
Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble,
and the flame consumeth the chaff,
so their root shall be as rottenness,
and their blossom shall go up as dust:
because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts,
and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

I enjoy looking at the arguments of those who strain to find problems in the Bible, every time we search, we learn more excellently !

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Soph.. You have put words into the mouth of Paul he never spoke. Paul never said "I am quoting Habakkuk", Paul spoke of the prophets.

Acts 13:40
Beware therefore, lest that come upon you,
which is spoken of in the prophets;

What Paul wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, built upon the foundation of scripture, including Habakkuk, and including the warnings of the prophet Isaiah, who calls out the warning to the despisers.
Shalom,
Steven

He is talking about Acts 13:41, not 13:40. That's a partial quote of Hab. 1:5.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

\

I suggest you read Chapter 6 of Crowned With Glory which addresses the LXX question. Here are some quotes:

For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed that Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.

It would be neet to have that as a module in SwordSearcher

It is a module in Swordsearcher.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by jerry

It is a module in Swordsearcher.

Thank you, I have to turn my tabs back on study them, 114 books a lot have short forms like CWG and it just never sunk into this thick scull

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Gord

Thank you, I have to turn my tabs back on study them, 114 books a lot have short forms like CWG and it just never sunk into this thick scull

Another way (without using the tabs) is to use the Library Table of Contents Tool (Search menu).

[George]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

I am starting this thread in response to a suggestion by Steven Avery to review some of the teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman [not as a means of personal attack or support of him] from a Biblical prospective.

One topic that is of interest to many is whether or not the Septuagint (LXX) existed B.C. and whether or not it was used by the NT writers as a reference; or conversely, is it a figment of the mind based on the work of early century heretics?

Sam Gipp questions its existence, so I suppose that Dr. Ruckman does also (not having read his teachings on this specifically). Matthew Verschuur supports its existence (right, Matthew?). What are the facts?

In 1984 I wrote a 14 page rebuttal to "The Truth About The King James Controversy" (Printed in 1981) By Dr. Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University). I have the rebuttal posted on my web site under "The King James Section".

I included some information about Peter Ruckman's position on the so-called "Septuagint" in the pamphlet, plus some of my own views on the matter. Read the so-called "letter to Aristeas" - How anybody with a sound mind could accept this "letter" as being "genuine" is beyond my comprehension. On its own face it is an obvious "fable" in support of someone looking to establish an "authority" other than the preserved word of God at that time.

Here is a portion of what I wrote in 1984:

A BIBLE BELIEVER'S EVALUATION OF THE PAMPHLET:

"The Truth About The King James Controversy"
By Dr. Stewart Custer – Printed 1981

{A “Hatchet Job” by a “Christian Scholar”}

From: PART III - The Ruckman Position

(Pages 18-19, entire 2nd paragraph)
#4) Dr. Custer states: "Mr. Ruckman claims that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) "never existed until 100 years after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, page 38)." This time the citation accurately states Dr. Ruckman's position on a B.C. "Septuagint" (A supposed Official "Authoritative" Greek Text for Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt.) Ruckman didn't invent the “theory” that the "Septuagint" is an Old Testament Greek Text fabricated by some A.D. "Christians" with a copy of the New Testament in their hands. P. E. Kahle (1875-1964) made this observation long before Peter Ruckman came on the scene!

(Page 18, Entire 2nd paragraph - Pages 19-20, Entire 1st paragraph)
#5) Dr. Custer presents his belief in the "Septuagint" by appealing to the Dead Sea Scrolls and then tries to pass these scrolls off as the "Septuagint". He also appeals to the A.V. translators opinions of the "Septuagint". Some of the Hebrew Old Testament might have been translated before the time of Christ. The possibility of the entire Old Testament having been translated into Greek is extremely doubtful, (The so-called "letter" {read "Fable"} of Aristeas aside). Also, every B.C. Papyrus Biblical fragment in Greek is not necessarily the "Septuagint". The very remote possibility that the Lord Jesus Christ or his Disciples would use a corrupt text is ludicrous! Again, the very idea that a GREEK Translation of the Old Testament would take precedence over the HEBREW TEXT is PREPOSTEROUS!!! There are NO "Facts" to "Prove" that the Lord Jesus Christ ever quoted from the "Septuagint".

(Page 19, 1st paragraph, lines 10-11)
#6) Speaking about his belief in the "Septuagint" Dr. Custer claims: "Instead they were quoting from the common Bible of the Greek-speaking world, just as the King James is the common Bible of the English-speaking world." The "Theory" that the "Septuagint" was the: "Common Bible of the Greek-speaking world, just as the King James Bible is the Common Bible of the English-speaking world." is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS, and without factual or historical foundation. This statement SLANDERS The HOLY BIBLE! - The "Septuagint" is commonly known, by almost anyone familiar with it, for being a very "corrupt" text - totally unreliable and untrustworthy. By making this unfair comparison, Custer shows his disdain for the A.V. 1611.

(Page 20, continued from previous page, lines 1-9)
#7) Again, Dr. Custer appeals to the A.V. translators in support of his belief. Just because the A.V. translators refer to the "Septuagint", doesn't mean that it is what the scholars claim it is. Those of us who believe that the A.V. is God's Word without proven error have never said that the A.V. Translators were perfect or that their judgment on all historical matters was infallible.

As you can see Custer wasn't much of a "teacher", but he was one of Bob Jones University's "anointed" professors (Greek), who in his pamphlet continually mis-stated and misrepresented the King James Bible issue on every page.