Why I Don't Believe in The Septuagint

[dizerner]

TheEditor I think you're writing from some old memories and that's okay, but what you are referring to is a different thing in the chapter before. It's called "word of knowledge" by Charismatics and Pentecostals (or instead of word: utterance, or speech), and in the passage it's specifically called a gift and manifestation of the Spirit, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. However in the passage in 1 Corinthians 13, there is a different context, continuing with love as the greatest gift.

Notice how it starts:
3 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Now I'm fairly sure you wouldn't argue that "all knowledge" here means a word of knowledge as a gift of the Spirit. The passage continues into:

... Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

The last time "knowledge" was referred to was the sum total of all knowledge, not a spiritual gift. Granted, he does mention prophecies and tongues, which are gifts, but that would parallel with 1 Cor. 13:1 where it says "tongues of angels...gift of prophecy." However, then "whether there is knowledge" parallels with "understand all mysteries and all knowledge." And to further confirm this interpretation of knowledge as the sum of human knowledge the passage ends with this:

Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Paul says "now I know in part," that is he does not have "all knowledge." I don't think this references the gift of a "word of knowledge" because he says one day he will "know" in the same way he is also "known." In other words, God knows all things about him, Paul; but God doesn't have a word of knowledge about Paul. Paul shall know as he is known, that is in like manner, in a similar way. So the knowledge and knowing here, is not a special gift, but a generic and universal knowledge.

[TheEditor]

The immediate context refers to supernatural gifts. Why not infer the obvious rather than tying it to a later verse?

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

We study the historical record. The historical record clearly emphasis the original audience as the recipients of all said future events. Therefore, we are told what remains; and either we believe it or not. Those who choose to believe there's something else to it, go for it! But for those who believe there isn't, they are justified in their belief because the evidence, to said events, in every writing, is 100% purposed to the original audience - 2000 years ago!

Do you think The Bereans were dealing with the nonsense we are dealing with when THEY searched the scriptures? NO!

God Bless.

Just a minor point in all this, but the Bereans were not recipients of any scriptural data or apostolic revelation concerning immediate future events. They were searching through the OT to validate Paul's claims about Christ.

Hi Jose,

My point, concerning the Bereans, had nothing to do with them being "recipients of any scriptural data or apostolic revelation concerning immediate future events." It's the nonsense concerning NOT having original documents or validated copies of the original script to search out the truth. The Bereans not only had validated script, but also had Apostles, Prophets and everything else as confirmation to discern what is inspired. WE HAVE NONE OF THIS and the OP and comments following is dealing with the nonsense in the wake of what was sensible to the original audience 2000 years ago!

We have no way of validating any original writing. Faith, hope and love is what remains and the study of the historical account and record, though flawed and errant, is what we must do the best we can with. Make no mistake, our 1st Century Brethren didn't have this same problem, when all else failed, they had the source - The Apostles.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Good point, Jose.

Robby, the Word of God lives and abides forever, not until 70 AD. We can all be good Bereans and I hope I am one. I won't neglect the study of God's Word because some people want to tell me it's all over with and doesn't apply me.

God bless

Hi dizerner,

I do believe God's Word will live on forever, but let's not confuse specific events in a dispensation of time, meant for a specific audience, with biblical principles all of mankind can benefit from. Yes dizerner, there are many EVENTS in God's Word that DOES NOT apply to you. Whether or not we choose to learn anything from these events is up to us.

I believe God has left us enough information to appreciate what transpired 2000 years ago. Therefore, faith, hope and love, is in fact, what sustains The Believer, post AD 70, as we sift through the record.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

The immediate context refers to supernatural gifts. Why not infer the obvious rather than tying it to a later verse?

Regards, Brenden.

Uh, no. The immediate context is love lasting forever.

[TheEditor]

(1 Corinthians 13:8) But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

Not sure what you mean. Obviously the subject of this part of the letter is the surpassing way of love, but this verse speaks of tongues and prophesying. Why not draw the conclusion that the knowledge referred to is of a supernatural nature as opposed to academic? Unless we take the tongues to mean linguistic study and the prophesying to mean rebuke.

Regards, Brenden.

[Jose]

Hi Robby,

I understand what the thread is about, but thanks for clarifying your point as it was not obvious. You made reference to an original audience twice in the paragraph I quoted, and directly afterward you referenced the Bereans. I think one would naturally conclude that they were part of the audience you had just described; brought in to make your point.

No doubt having apostles around today would clarify things- for some people. There would still be others who would reject them now as they were back then.

I would like to ask though, since this thread is about the validity of the LXX and the MT, how can you confidently assert that the Bereans had a "validated script?" Do you know which one they had in their possession?

[robbyyoung]

No doubt having apostles around today would clarify things- for some people. There would still be others who would reject them now as they were back then.

Hi Jose,

Non-believers rejecting "the source" of The Truth is common. We are talking about an extraordinary condition; THOSE who are/being led to the household of FAITH in Christ, therefore, inspired instructions, teachings, and literature altogether matters. Yet we seem to be handicapped today, regarding the concerns of the OP, in the department of validating inspired literature. We simply have NO WAY of knowing, therefore, the blemished historical account and the absence of clarity from inspired brethren, to the record, inevitably proves true to what has remained; faith, hope, and love.

I would like to ask though, since this thread is about the validity of the LXX and the MT, how can you confidently assert that the Bereans had a "validated script?" Do you know which one they had in their possession?

Paul's said, "for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed,..."

Therefore, whatever "Scripture" they had, Paul seems to validate the script, for after searching them, they BELIEVED. However, since we are handicapped here, I guess you and anyone else can deny "These Scriptures" as inerrant. That's why inspired men, through The Holy Spirit, confirmed what is truth. Paul does not seem to be disapproving of "The Scriptures" The Bereans were searching.

God Bless.

[SteveF]

Paidion wrote:
Here is an example of a modern Septuagint:

https://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Notice that on the very first page reference is made to THE Greek Old Testament.
When scholars refer to THE Septuagint, they surely have some particular object in min

Just to clarify, the speaker in the video is not claiming there is no such thing as The Septuagint. He is claiming there was no such thing at the time the NT was written. His talk is to challenge the commonly repeated notion that the Septuagint we have today is essentially what the NT writers used.

Here are a few of His points:

-At the time of the New Testament writings there wouldn’t have been a standard Greek text called The Septuagint or anything similar to it.

-The legendary translation of the 72 would have only included a translation of the Pentateuch and nothing more.

-There were an unknown number of OT Greek Translations (He emphasizes the plural of the word translations) available to the NT writers. There wouldn’t have been a single entity like The Septuagint (like we have the NIV or ESV which are each a single translation containing specific books) but rather a variety of documents.

-Some books found in, what we now call, The Septuagint like “The Wisdom of Solomon” were originally written in Greek and weren’t even translated from Hebrew.

It seems quite possible that at the time the NT was written there may have been multiple Greek translations of a specific OT book (or books) available.

[Jose]

Hi Robby,

I'm not spooked by the idea that errors have crept into the text, however if one goes too far, one might end up in Bart Ehrman's camp. Just my opinion, but if there is NO WAY to validate the scripture, then one can't even claim that "all that remains is Faith, Hope and Love" because that statement itself is being drawn from the very text that can't be validated.