The Septuagint

[Pierac]

The "bible contradictions thread" brought to light some problems with the Masoretic texts, I wanted to show how these "apologetics" problems do not exist in the Septuagint.

The Septuagint was the first translation made of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek.  What I did not know was that it often reads differently from the Masoretic texts, the Old Testament texts that became standardized for the Jews after A.D. 70., and that is the text most of us have in our bibles today.

Most of our Bibles today in the West had been translated from the Masoretic texts, which means that early Christian quotations from the Old Testament sometimes do not fit our Bibles.

It seems strange to me that the early Christians preferred the Septuagint translation over the Hebrew text of their day? And, so did most of the New Testament writers.  I never realized when they quoted from the Old Testament, the apostles primarily quoted from the Septuagint.  So their quotations, frequently don't match the Old Testament passages in our Bibles.

For example, look at this passage from Psalms that is quoted in the book of Hebrews:

ESV Heb 10:5  Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired," but a body have you prepared for me;

Our Bibles don't say anything in Psalms about "a body now has been prepared for me."   Is that not part of Scripture?

ESV Psa 40:6  In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

LXX Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.

This is not an isolated example either.  Such bearing to between the Septuagint in the Masoretic texts are fairly numerous.  In fact, one of the major teachings of Christianity revolves around one of these variances.

Let's look at Matthews quotation from Isaiah 7:14

ESV Mat 1:22  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

What I did not realize until recently was that the Hebrew Masoretic texts does not say, "the virgin shall be with child."  It says, "the young woman shall be with child."

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 pledged on their use of the Masoretic texts in order to conform to the common teaching of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. Seems to me, it would have been better to have the Septuagint text as our Old Testament instead of the Masoretic.

Several months ago, I found a web site that had several PowerPoint presentations. The site does not give a name? One of these PowerPoint presentations contained a large amount of information about the Septuagint.  I thought I would share that here. BTW, His or Her info. matches several sources I have checked. One of which is Common Sense A New Approach to understanding Scripture by David Bercot

Manuscript/Bible time line:

TORAH: Dated to the time of Moses
Samaritan Pentateuch : 300 B.C.
Septuagint (LXX) OT: 250 B.C.

JESUS :

Aramaic Pecolon cannonballsta : 100-150 A.D.
Diatesseron: 170-200 A.D. (4 Gospels) / Tatiain
Chester Beaty Papyrus (200 AD)
Vatican NT : 250 A.D.
Sinai NT: 250 A.D.
Codex Bezae  (300 AD)
Alexandrian NT: 350 A.D. 
Masoretic Text O.T.  900 -1000 A.D.
Latin Vulgate OT / NT 350 A.D.
King James Version 1611 A.D.

MASORETIC TEXT O.T.  900 A.D.

The oldest translations of the ENTIRE Masoret Tanakh tend to come from the Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD.  There's another from 925 AD, but nothing before that date has all the books of the Tanakh.   So our oldest Masoret texts are from a rather recent date. There are a few Torahs from further back than that. There are partial scrolls from further back than that.  But often the translation we generally get is from a text that is only about 1000 years old.

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.  Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Even a leading atheist named Frank Zindler (although being sarcastic) made a good point when he stated the following: 
"The problem for true believers is this: The Greek version (Septuagint) reflects a Hebrew text more than a thousand years older than the Hebrew text used as the standard for the King James. Shouldn't we follow the Greek — even if it is a translation — instead of the Hebrew? It should be noted that the authors of the New Testament, when citing the Old Testament, cited it in Greek resembling the LXX far more often than the Masoretic Textus Receptus. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus, shouldn't it be good enough for Presbyterians?"


Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.


Age of Levitical Service

MT Numbers 4: 3, 23, 30, 35, 39
the ages of the Levites qualified to minister in the temple was between ages 30 to 50

MT Numbers 8: 24
the ages are between 25 and 50

In the Septuagint however, both chapters say between 25 and 50 each time. There is no discrepancy.


How Many Horsemen?

MT 2 Sam 8:4   (1,700 horsemen)
4 And David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough
for a hundred chariots.

MT 1 Chr 18:4  (7,000 horsemen)
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left
enough for a hundred chariots

LXX: agrees with both. It reads: 7,000 in both passages

2 Sam 8:4 - 4 And David took a thousand of his chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all his chariot horses, and he reserved to himself a hundred chariots.

1 Chr 18:4 4 And David took of them a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand infantry: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but there were reserved of them a hundred chariots.


How many years of famine?

2 Sam 24:13  (7 years)
13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine
enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

1 Chr 21:12  (3 years)
12 either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days of the sword of the
LORD, pestilence upon the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now decide what answer I shall Return to him who sent
me.

The LXX reads: 3 years famine in both (3 years) 2 Sam 24:13- And Gad went in to David, and told him, and said to him, Choose one of these things to befall thee, whether there shall come upon thee for three years famine in thy land; or that thou shouldest flee three months before thine enemies, and they should pursue thee; or that there should be for three days mortality in thy land. Now then decide, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

(3 years) 1 Chr 21:12 either three years of famine, or that thou shouldest flee three months from the face of thine enemies, and the sword of thine enemies shall be
employed to destroy thee, or that the sword of the Lord and pestilence should be three days in the land, and the angel of the Lord shall be destroying in all the
inheritance of Israel. And now consider what I shall answer to him that sent the message.

How Many Foremen?

1 Ki 5:16  (3,300 foremen) 16 besides Solomon's three thousand three hundred chief officers who were over the work, who had charge of the people who carried on the work.

2 Chr 2:18  (3,600 foremen)
18 Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burdens, eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country, and three thousand six hundred as overseers to make the people work.

LXX reads: 3,600 in both passages.

1 Ki 5:16 besides the rulers that were appointed over the works of Solomon, there were three thousand six hundred masters who wrought in the works.

2 Chr 2:18 And he made of them seventy thousand burden-bearers, and eighty thousand hewers of stone, and three thousand six hundred taskmasters over the people.


You can check your e-sword to confirm.

Paul

[Pierac]

Here is where Bible attackers have a field day.
II Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2. (KJV)

Jehoram was 32 when he began to reign.

He reigned 8 years.

This makes him 40 years old.

His son Ahaziah reined immediately after him.

Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign.

Thus Jehoram's son was 2 years older than himself.


LXX  II Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2.

21:20 He (Jehoram) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he departed without honour, and was buried in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ochozias (AHAZIAH) his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of robbers that came against them, even the Arabians and the Alimazonians, had slain all the elder ones. So Ochozias (AHAZIAH) son of Joram king of Juda reigned.
22:2 Ochozias (AHAZIAH) began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri.

Let us now turn to I Kings 16:23, 28-29 in the King James:

"In the thirty and first year of Asa, King of Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years ... So Omri slept with his fathers ... and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel."

Omri began to reign in the 31st year of Asa and reigned 12 years.

Omri died and his son Ahab began to reign in the 38th year of Asa.

The means Omri only reigned 7 years and not 12 as we are told at first.

This is not simply a mistake as to which year of Asa's reign Ahab began to reign in, but in fact the Masoretic text omits several verses between verse 28 and 29 which tell us that Josaphat, son of Asa began to reign. Thus, the Septuagint reads (note that Ambri = Omri, and Achaab = Ahab):


LXX
"In the thirty-first year of king Asa, Ambri (Omri) begins to reign over Israel twelve years ... And Ambri (Omri) slept with his fathers ... and Achaab (Ahab) his son reigns in his stead. (And in the eleventh year of Ambri Josaphat the son of Asa reigns...). In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab (Ahab) son of Ambri (Omri) reigned over Israel.."

This means that instead of Ahab reigning at the same time Asa was, he actually reigned while Asa's son Josaphat reigned

[Pierac]

The Jewish historian Josephus who lived at the time of Christ, wrote the Antiquity of the Jews, The Jewish War, and Against Apion. In his book, the Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus interprets the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 as starting with Abraham's entrance into Canaan and ending at the Exodus. Josephus states:
"They left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month, four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt"  (1830,59; Book 2.15.2).


This follows the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 12:40 which says, "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan was four hundred and thirty years"

The Masoretic leaves out "Canaan."

Galatians 3:15 My brethren, I speak as among men; a man's covenant which is confirmed, no one setteth aside, or changeth any thing in it. 16 Now to Abraham was the promise made, and to his seed. And it said to him, not, to thy seeds, as being many; but to thy seed, as being one, which is the Messiah. 17 And this I say: That the covenant which was previously confirmed by God in the Messiah, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot set it aside, and nullify the promise.


Also…

Quote:
Skeptic: Jeconiah was cursed and called "childless"

Jer 22:30 Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.

Yet he is an ancestor of Jesus in the new Testament. (Matthew 1:11-12)

Response: The oldest text (The Septuagint) does not say "childless" but reads "outcast." This is not a contradiction. He can be called an outcast and still have children that continue the lineage but not sit upon the throne of David as a royal "prince." 

(LXX version) Jeremiah 22:29 Land, land, hear the word of the Lord. 30 Write ye this man an outcast: for there shall none of his seed at all grow up to sit on the throne of David, or as a prince yet in Juda.



MT reads:
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (this makes it unclear whether God worked on the Sabbath or not)

LXX reads:
Genesis 2:2 And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, (this text would clearly mean that God rested on the Sabbath).

[Pierac]

Would Israel be Rebuilt?

Jer 31:4
Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

Jer 38:4 (LXX)
4 For I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt yet take thy timbrel, and go forth with the party of them that make merry. 5 For ye have planted vineyards on the mountains of Samaria: plant ye, and praise. 6 For it is a day when those that plead on the mountains of Ephraim shall call, saying, Arise ye, and go up to Sion to the Lord your God.

These words of Jeremiah were speaking about Judah and Israel. That after the captivity, they would all be gathered together back to one place. This does not mean the "House of Israel" (Kingship of Israel) would be rebuilt. It simply meant they people would be gathered back together but this time it would be in Jerusalem or  (The House of Judah).

Ezk 37:21-22
I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

LXX 21 And thou shalt say to them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the whole house of Israel out of the midst of the nations, among whom they have gone, and I will gather them from all that are round about them, and I will bring them into the land of Israel. 22 And I will make them a nation in my land, even on the mountains of Israel; and they shall have one prince: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided any more at all into two kingdoms: 23 that they may no more defile themselves with their idols; and I will deliver them from all their transgressions whereby they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be to me a people, and I the Lord will be to them a God.  24 And my servant David shall be a prince in the midst of them: there shall be one shepherd of them all; for they shall walk in mine ordinances, and keep my judgments, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in their land, which I have given to my servant Jacob, where their fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell upon it: and David my servant shall be their prince forever.

This text does not say that the "House of Israel" (mentioned in Amos 5) will be rebuilt but that those of the House of Israel will be gathered with those of Judah and they shall all have one prince (vs. 22). They will no longer be two nations nor divided.  This did not mean another House of Israel (Kingship) would be built in Israel but this place was in Jerusalem.

Amos 5:2
The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.

LXX  Hear ye this word of the Lord, even a lamentation, which I take up against you. The house of Israel is fallen; it shall no more rise. 2 The virgin of Israel has fallen upon his land; there is none that shall raise her up. 3 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; The city out of which there went forth a thousand, in it there shall be left a hundred, and in that out of which there went forth a hundred, there shall be left ten to the house of Israel.

The House of Israel is not the same as the Virgin of Israel. The House of Israel (Kingship) fell and would not be rebuilt. When speaking of the "Virgin of Israel" it states that there IS none (present tense) that shall raise her up. I believe this is speaking of anyone of earth (not God himself). The oldest text does NOT say that the Virgin of Israel shall no more rise but that the House of Israel shall no more rise).

So the conclusion is that the Kingship or House of Israel will not rise again but Israel will rise along with the other tribes and when Amos prophesied, he was stating that there was no one to raise her up at that time.  Amos opens the first chapter speaking of both Kings and capitals.

Notice in Luke 3: 36 that Cainan is within the lineage of Christ. But if you go back to the lineage in the Old Testament (in Genesis 11:12), Cainan is not in the lineage.

Response: The Septuagint does include Cainan and agrees with the book of Luke on the ancestry. It reads:

Genesis 11: "12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died


Also...


Exodus 1:5 in the Masoretic text says "70" people went into Egypt while Stephen said "75" in Acts 7:14.

The Septuagint states in Exodus 1:5 states that "Seventy-five" people went into Egypt. The Dead Sea scrolls also support this number by saying "Seventy-five." Stephen was quoting the then known Old Testament (the Septuagint).


Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4

"and in his name will the Gentiles hope."

LXX: "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."

MSS: (KJV)  "and the coastlands wait for his law."


Paul

[Pierac]

THE NT QUOTES THE LXX VERSION OF ISAIAH OVER THE MASORETIC TEXT:

Another example: Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" is missing in the MT. In the DSS and LXX it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out.

The DSS also contain the 151st Psalm which is a Davidic Psalm just as the LXX does. The MSS leaves this out.

That Paul relied upon the Septuagint is made strikingly clear from Romans 3.12-18. This entire passage is contained in one psalm in the Septuagint.

ASV Romans 3: 12-18
They have all turned aside,they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Septuagint Psalm 14:3
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one.  Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways;and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.

Masoretic Text
If Paul were relying upon the Hebrew, he had to string together phrases from six separate locations in this passage: Psalm 14.1-3 (or 53.1-3), 5.9, 140.3, 10.7, Isaiah 59.7-9, and Psalm 36.1.  It would be a remarkable coincidence if Paul - using the Hebrew alone – were to collect just these fragments in just the same order as they appear in the Septuagint.


How tall was Goliath?


The Masoretic 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, or roughly 9 feet 9 inches.

However, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls say 4 cubits and a span, or about 6 feet, 9 inches.

Interestingly, Flavius Josephus (who once was a Jewish Pharisee and a scholar on Jewish History) agrees with the Septuagint as well when he writes "4 cubits and a span."

P

[Pierac]

The Testimony of Justin Martyr

Justin was a Gentile, born in Samaria near Jacob's well, and lived approximately A.D. 110 to 165, when he was martyred by decapitation at Rome, like the apostle Paul. In his "Dialogue with Trypho," a learned Jew, he makes some remarkable statements which need to be analyzed, as they pertain to the Septuagint and the alleged "missing verses" not found in the Jewish Masoretic text. Remember, the Jewish rabbis had by this time rejected the Septuagint from the synagogues, and had replaced it with their own new Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures. But, Justin says in his dialogue, they had left off many of the Scriptural verses which had previously been used to prove Jesus was the Christ! …….

Justin Martyr Regarding the LXX:

Justin, speaking to Trypho, declares:

"'But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to FRAME ANOTHER. And I wish you to observe, that they have ALTOGETHER TAKEN AWAY MANY SCRIP-TURES from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is PROVED to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is DENIED by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention except that you contradict the statement," "Behold, the virgin shall conceive," and say it ought to be read, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive"…."

….."And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following:" "I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered."

And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."

LXX
11:19 But I as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter, knew not: against me they devised an evil device, saying, Come and let us put wood into his bread, and let us utterly destroy him from off the land of the living, and let his name not be remembered any more.

MST
11:19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.

P

[Pierac]

Did Job's Children Really Die?

In the book of Job, his children are killed in chapter 1 vs. 18-19, yet later in the book, it appears his children are still alive in Job 19:17 (KJV) "My breath is strange to my wife, though I intreated for the children's sake of mine own body. 18 Yea, young children despised me; I arose, and they spake against me."
Many modern English translations falsely try to re-translate this into "the brothers or my mother" but that is not in the Hebrew Text. It is simply changed to make sense for modern readers. (See Strong's Definitions).

The LXX makes it clearer because it specifies that the children were actually his concubine's sons and not his children from his wife. LXX: 17 "And I besought my wife, and earnestly intreated the sons of my concubines. 18 But they rejected me for ever; whenever I rise up, they speak against me. 19 They that saw me abhorred me: the very persons whom I had loved, rose up against me."



SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

Another of the early texts available of the five books of Moses is the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Bible of the ancient Samaritans. It differs from the Masoretic text in some 6,000 readings, although it is generally the same as the Masoretic text. Some of these 6,000 differences are minor matters such as spelling of words. However, for 1,900 of these variations, the Samaritan text agrees with the Septuagint!

The End



I found this information in a power point presentation. It did not contain the author's name.
It came from an apologetic web site.  I was surprised to find the Old Testament in our Bibles (The Masoretic text) does not match the Septuagint text.

The Septuagint was assembled around 250 B.C., hundreds of years before Christ.  The Jews put the Septuagint together because they needed an accurate Greek translation for their non-Hebrew speaking Jews.  They chose 70 scholars to translate their Hebrew text into Greek.  Thus the Septuagint is frequently abbreviated LXX, meaning "the 70".
What this guy put together shows that the apostles actually quoted from the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text that is in our Bibles today.  His point was to show that there is no conflict when the New Testament is compared to the Septuagint unlike the conflicts with the Masoretic text or (M.T.).

I was totally unaware of any inconsistencies until I read his PowerPoint presentation.  His work can easily be confirmed by using e-sword and comparing the Masoretic text (M.T.) with the Septuagint text (LXX).

This goes a long way in helping with apologetics of our Bible.  Since this information was totally new to me, I thought I would share.  It is information that will help with apologetics.

Peace,
Paul

[WhiteWings]

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 pledged on their use of the Masoretic texts in order to conform to the common teaching of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. Seems to me, it would have been better to have the Septuagint text as our Old Testament instead of the Masoretic.

Yep, I think translations should be "1 on 1" as possible. Even if other words are correct too. I don't know if the translation should be "young woman" or "virgin" but from reading another verse I know that that young woman was a virgin.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Doesn't that underlined part mean "I didn't have sex with a man". And isn't that the definition of virginity? (besides lesbian acts etc)
Thanks for addressing my contradictions.
In a way, explanations like you gave in this thread are equally and likely more important than all the 'God is love' threads on this forum. Things work a bit like this. Some religious person waves KJV in the air and declares its the perfect word of  a perfect God. Then someone points to a list I posted in the other thread and suddenly God isn't perfect anymore. And the would be believers leave the path to faith. And that makes me wonder what the real purpose of the church is. If I had good understanding of the Word and had a high ranking position in church I would order/pay a group of scholars to write a revised Bible with all those mistakes fixed so that the word of the one I claim to serve isn't slandered for mistakes even a child can spot.

/edit 1
Perhaps it's best that you close my contradiction thread with a message pointing to this explaining thread?

/edit 2
I tried to find the verses with the exact wording you quoted but I can't find them in e-Sword.
Perhaps I just don't have that Bible installed. What is it's full and abbreviated name. Possible a download link. Thanks.

[Pierac]

Most of my e-sword bibles come from here!  I'm up to 60. And yes, on rare occasions I do use all 60 to look at one verse!


http://www.davidcox.com.mx/esword2/index.htm

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/esword2/esword%20module%20locator%20data%20bank.html


Here's a link to the hard to find Concordant Literal Translation  CLV

http://www.esnips.com/doc/fda2551f-b10e-464e-9d77-226836b3e9a8/clv.zip

Codex Sinaiticus in English and Whistons Primitive N.T.

http://www.esnips.com/web/JoelsVarious

The free Net bible for e-sword is here.

http://store.bible.org/product_info.asp?productid=71

Or

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3118

I tried to find the verses with the exact wording you quoted but I can't find them in e-Sword.
Perhaps I just don't have that Bible installed. What is it's full and abbreviated name. Possible a download link. Thanks.

Your going to have to go with the more literal translations, Like the Revised version of 1910. etc..

Paul

[WhiteWings]

Pierac,

"Behold, the young woman shall conceive"
In which Bible at what book/chapter verse you found that?

I do have CLV and RV installed. Plus other literal versions.
Maybe I just search the wrong way. (can't imagine how it can go wrong)

[Loveroftruth]

 

[Pierac]

Pierac,

"Behold, the young woman shall conceive"
In which Bible at what book/chapter verse you found that?

I do have CLV and RV installed. Plus other literal versions.
Maybe I just search the wrong way. (can't imagine how it can go wrong)

Use the "compare" button, as it shows all your Bible versions at once.

Isaiah 7:14:

(rsv)  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

(nrs)  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman [18] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. [19]

(NET)   For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign.24 Look, this25 young woman26 is about to conceive27 and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him28 Immanuel.29

Net Commentary:
26 tn Traditionally, "virgin." Because this verse from Isaiah is  quoted in Mat_1:23 in connection with Jesus' birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one's view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, 'almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen_24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם ('elem, "young man"; cf. 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated "young woman." The Septuagint (LXX) translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean "virgin" in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the  citation of Isa_7:14 n Mat_1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew's usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

(JPS)  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(GNB)  Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'

(BBE)  For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

[WhiteWings]

I use the compare button often.
But now I see why I couldn't find your quote.
I didn't have the JPS translation installed
Now I have things work as expected.

I'm glad I started that contradictions thread. LXX solves all those problems.
I'm a doubter but even before posting that thread I knew I would get corrected. Great forum
Recently I was looking into an analysis of how long Noach was on his ark. The KJV made a complete mess of it. The atheists site had much fun with that. Until someone came up with a proper translation.
The NET bible you mentioned is only free for the first 3 verses of a chapter so I bought the full version. It has the contradictions mentioned in this thread. But it adresses those contradictions in its comments. Example

2Sa 8:4 

 8 tc The Septuagint (LXX) has "one thousand chariots and seven thousand charioteers," a reading adopted in the text of the NIV. See the parallel text in 1Ch_18:4.

Pierac thanks for killing a little bit of the doubter within me

[WhiteWings]

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.  Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Not all seem to agree on that.
Quote from the attached document:

Dead Sea Scrolls: Dramatic Evidence for the Reliability of Messianic Prophecy
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found, dating back to 100--200 B.C. This is dramatic, because we now have absolute evidence that Messianic prophecies contained in today's Old Testament (both Jewish and Christian) are the same Messianic prophecies that existed prior to the time Jesus walked on this earth. It goes without saying, manuscript reliability and textual criticism have taken cosmic steps forward! Check it out – There is no question that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for!
Dead Sea Scrolls - The Book of Isaiah
Over 200 fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed at the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem. Remarkably, the only fully intact scroll displayed at the Shrine of the Book is the "Great Isaiah Scroll" (1Qls-a), which contains the entire book of Isaiah that we read today -- all 66 chapters! A number of scholars, from a number of religions and professional disciplines, have analyzed this major find.

[Pierac]

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.  Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Not all seem to agree on that.
Quote from the attached document:

Dead Sea Scrolls: Dramatic Evidence for the Reliability of Messianic Prophecy
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found, dating back to 100--200 B.C. This is dramatic, because we now have absolute evidence that Messianic prophecies contained in today's Old Testament (both Jewish and Christian) are the same Messianic prophecies that existed prior to the time Jesus walked on this earth. It goes without saying, manuscript reliability and textual criticism have taken cosmic steps forward! Check it out – There is no question that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for!
Dead Sea Scrolls - The Book of Isaiah
Over 200 fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed at the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem. Remarkably, the only fully intact scroll displayed at the Shrine of the Book is the "Great Isaiah Scroll" (1Qls-a), which contains the entire book of Isaiah that we read today -- all 66 chapters! A number of scholars, from a number of religions and professional disciplines, have analyzed this major find.

Yes indeed WhiteWing, when will we ever see the scholars agree on anything. 

So how does you second quote about Messianis Prophecy above relate to the LXX? Did you confuse  Masoretic Text with Messianic Prophecy?   

Paul

[WhiteWings]

Sorry,

I quoted the wrong part....

As such, the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Phenomenally, we find the biblical texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text, as well as variant translations of the Old Testament used today.

Now define substantial.... Strictly speaking it doesn't say LXX is even more substantial.
The sceptic in me wouldn't be suprised their is yet another little conspiracy going here.
I've see articles who used the scrolls to prove the whole 'Jesus story' is a lie. That would perfectly fit the agenda of Jew and muslim.

A number of scholars, from a number of religions and professional disciplines, have analyzed this major find.

The wrongly quoted part in my previous message clearly states it absolute proof. Just like always every camp can show a list of scholars that back up their views....
My point is this: do you really think a muslim scolar wants to find proof Jesus is real?
It's called the most important archeologic find ever. Even more so for church I would guess. Why does research only start half a century later?
Of did the church find something they didn't like?

Here's Isaiah 53 from the King James Version of the Bible, which was translated from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scripture. Compare it to the portion of the Great Isaiah Scroll reproduced on the prior page - it's dramatic!

The KJV pops up again. Now I'm starting getting totally unfounded idea that the LXX doesn't support certain church made doctrines. KJV does and that's why the scrolls have to proof the KJV is right. I would like someone who did some more study on this air his/her view on this.

[Pierac]

Sorry,

Now define substantial.... Strictly speaking it doesn't say LXX is even more substantial.
The sceptic in me wouldn't be suprised their is yet another little conspiracy going here.
I've see articles who used the scrolls to prove the whole 'Jesus story' is a lie. That would perfectly fit the agenda of Jew and muslim.

A number of scholars, from a number of religions and professional disciplines, have analyzed this major find.

I think we are seeing this research differently, before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the LXX was considered inferior. Only after the discovery of the DSS did scholars see the accuracy of the LXX. I think that is what he means by substantial.

A number of scholars, from a number of religions and professional disciplines, have analyzed this major find.

The wrongly quoted part in my previous message clearly states it absolute proof. Just like always every camp can show a list of scholars that back up their views....
My point is this: do you really think a muslim scolar wants to find proof Jesus is real?
It's called the most important archeologic find ever. Even more so for church I would guess. Why does research only start half a century later?
Of did the church find something they didn't like?

The scholars were researching the DDS, not the LXX?

Here's Isaiah 53 from the King James Version of the Bible, which was translated from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scripture. Compare it to the portion of the Great Isaiah Scroll reproduced on the prior page - it's dramatic!

The KJV pops up again. Now I'm starting getting totally unfounded idea that the LXX doesn't support certain church made doctrines. KJV does and that's why the scrolls have to proof the KJV is right. I would like someone who did some more study on this air his/her view on this.

The difference between the LXX and the Masoretic text has more to do with apologetics rather than doctrine. The only doctrine issue would be at Isaiah 7:14

Hebrew Masoretic texts says,  "the young woman shall be with child." And the LXX reads "the virgin shall be with child."

I do not see any real doctrine related issues between these text, mostly just apologetics. You can read above the errors of the MT that are not present in the LXX.

[Pierac]

Hi WhiteWing,

Here is some more information I pulled from a web site on the LXX, I have not had time to check it all, so reader beware.... You will need a copy of the LXX to compare

Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew text

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5

To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr  3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved, 
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, 
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord? 
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed 
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38


Next I will post the MT quotes...
Paul

[Pierac]

Occasions where a Masoretic Reading Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Septuagint
 

He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19

Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8

Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15

They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27


Paul

[WhiteWings]

I think we are seeing this research differently, before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the LXX was considered inferior. Only after the discovery of the DSS did scholars see the accuracy of the LXX. I think that is what he means by substantial.

LXX isn't mentioned in this document. Only Masoretic text and KJV.
From that I conclude they used the DDS to establish the acuracy of the Masoretic text and indirectly KJV.

The scholars were researching the DDS, not the LXX

Indeed the DDS but it is only logical, to me, that they compare things with out source texts.
In this article only the Masoretic text is mentioned.

The difference between the LXX and the Masoretic text has more to do with apologetics rather than doctrine.

Ok, but still I don't like such mistakes.
You remember my original thread this thread spawned from....?
Such mistakes won't scare of anyone that is already deep in faith.
But I think it scares of beginning Christians.
Imagine when you really doubt religion is fake or not. You start searching in Google and find several websites with dozens of contractictions that simply are in the Bible that is supposed to be without any mistake.
And personally when I found  50 unimportant errors I'm starting to loose my trust in that translation for all that's written. So for me apologetics are important too.

Here is some more information I pulled from a web site on the LXX

URL please.

[Pierac]

URL please.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/olb.html

http://home.comcast.net/~jovial/learn/mc/TanakVersions.htm


Paul

[Pierac]

Imagine when you really doubt religion is fake or not. You start searching in Google and find several websites with dozens of contractictions that simply are in the Bible that is supposed to be without any mistake.
And personally when I found 50 unimportant errors I'm starting to loose my trust in that translation for all that's written. So for me apologetics are important too.

Indeed, when one choses to go down the path of textual criticism, they must be prepared. The real question is what do you do when you start finding important errors? Personally I believe this topic is too much for this site, many coming here will have enough struggles with UR and don't need other issues to deal with. 

As for my post on the LXX, I still believe it would be better served to have it in our Bibles today instead of the MT. It has fewer mistakes and is quoted 91% over the MT by Jesus and the apostles. (See the first Link I provided).  Just my opinion 

Paul

[sven]

a few days ago a German translation of the Septuagint was released, the first translation into German ever, to you think it's worth to buy?

does anybody of you own a printed translation of the Septuagint?, i know there's an English translation online, but i'm quite interested in the LXX and want to read it in my own language, so what do you think, is it worth to buy?