Proving that the Hebrew Masoretic Text is right and the Greek Septuagint is wrong

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#1
this is to show that the genesis 5 genealogy in the hebrew masoretic text of the old testament are self consistent but the same genealogy as translated in the greek septuagint is self contradictory and incorrect...

first i should point out that this study does not require any prior assumption of which ancient version is correct... i am basically giving each version a chance to verify or disprove itself

for the hebrew masoretic text i am using the NIV 2011 which is based on the hebrew:
Genesis 5 NIV - From Adam to Noah This is the written - Bible Gateway

i will post verses from genesis 5 and give a running total of the number of years since creation

genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

so first we see that seth was born 130 years after adam was created

genesis 5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh.

enosh was born 105 years after seth was born... 130 + 105 = 235 years after creation

genesis 5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan.

kenan was born 90 years after enosh was born... 235 + 90 = 325 years after creation

genesis 5:12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel.

mahalalel was born 70 years after kenan was born... 325 + 70 = 395 years after creation

genesis 5:15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared.

jared was born 65 years after mahalalel was born... 395 + 65 = 460 years after creation

genesis 5:18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.

enoch was born 162 years after jared was born... 460 + 162 = 622 years after creation

genesis 5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah.

methuselah was born 65 years after enoch was born... 622 + 65 = 687 years after creation

genesis 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech.

lamech was born 187 years after methuselah was born... 687 + 187 = 874 years after creation

genesis 5:28-29 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

noah was born 182 years after lamech was born... 874 + 182 = 1,056 years after creation

genesis 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.

the flood began 600 years after noah was born... 1,056 + 600 = 1,656 years after creation

now i will go back to show when methuselah died...

genesis 5:26-27 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.

methuselah died 782 years after lamech was born... 874 + 782 = 1,656 years after creation

or we could say methuselah died 969 years after he was born... 687 + 969 = 1,656 years after creation

we can see that methuselah died in exactly the same year as the flood... this does not present any problem and it is actually supported by one interpretation of the name methusaleh meaning 'his death will bring it'

so there is no chronological difficulty in the hebrew masoretic text of genesis 5... it is totally self consistent
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#2
now i will do the same thing for the ancient greek septuagint translation of the bible...

for the greek septuagint i am using sir lancelot brenton's english translation of the greek:
Genesis

this time i am posting verses from genesis 5 in the septuagint and giving a similar running total of the time since creation

genesis 5:3 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form, and after his own image, and he called his name Seth.

so first we see that according to the septuagint seth was born 230 years after adam was created

genesis 5:6 Now Seth lived two hundred and five years, and begot Enos.


enos was born 205 years after seth was born... 230 + 205 = 435 years after creation

genesis 5:9 And Enos lived an hundred and ninety years, and begot Cainan.

cainan was born 190 years after enos was born... 435 + 190 = 625 years after creation

genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived an hundred and seventy years, and he begot Maleleel.

maleleel was born 170 years after cainan was born... 625 + 170 = 795 years after creation

genesis 5:15 And Maleleel lived an hundred and sixty and five years, and he begot Jared.

jared was born 165 years after maleleel was born... 795 + 165 = 960 years after creation

genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred and sixty and two years, and begot Enoch:

enoch was born 162 years after jared was born... 960 + 162 = 1,122 years after creation

genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived an hundred and sixty and five years, and begat Mathusala.

mathusala was born 165 years after enoch was born... 1,122 + 165 = 1,287 years after creation

genesis 5:25 And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech.

lamech was born 167 years after mathusala was born... 1,287 + 167 = 1,454 years after creation

genesis 5:28-29 And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed.

noe was born 188 years after lamech was born... 1,454 + 188 = 1,642 years after creation

genesis 7:6 And Noe was six hundred years old when the flood of water was upon the earth.

the flood began 600 years after noe was born... 1,642 + 600 = 2,242 years after creation

now i will go back again to show when mathusala died according to the septuagint...

genesis 5:26-27 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech eight hundred and two years, and begot sons and daughters. And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were nine hundred and sixty and nine years, and he died.

mathusala died 802 years after lamech was born... 1,454 + 802 = 2,256 years after creation

or we could say mathusala died 969 years after he was born... 1,287 + 969 = 2,256 years after creation

so according to the greek septuagint the flood happened 2,242 years after creation...but mathusala did not die until 2,256 years after creation... 2,256 - 2,242 = 14 years -after- the flood

unlike the hebrew masoretic text...the greek septuagint contains a chronological contradiction...

the greek septuagint cannot be trusted...at least not on the genealogy of genesis 5
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#3
the hebrew masoretic text has passed the genesis 5 test...while the ancient greek septuagint translation has been shown to contain a contradiction...an error...in genesis 5

i have yet to find any error anywhere in the hebrew masoretic text...but i have already shown that the greek septuagint contains at least one error in genesis 5

my conclusion is that the original hebrew masoretic text is inerrant and superior to the greek septuagint which contains errors

this does not undermine the truth of the bible as long as we use translations based on the hebrew masoretic text...

the king james version and its ancestors...and almost all modern bibles...are based on either the hebrew masoretic text or the latin vulgate...which is itself mostly translated from the hebrew text
 

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#4
First Question. . .what translations if any use the 2nd genealogy? All the major english versions I have checked use the 1st one.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#5
That's definitely strange... Thanks for the post... I never thought this could be true but it is... Probably a misprint or its not the proper manuscript of the LXX, it must have gotten corrupted over the years of copying. Nevertheless I still believe that it is the Word of God because the Apostles used it, and also because the manuscripts of the Hebrew were corrupted because of the Masorites.

Read this site: Old Testament Manuscripts

"By the time bibles came around (in the 15th century), the original Hebrew had been lost, both the manuscripts and the language. There is not a man alive today who knows how to pronounce or read the original Hebrew language.
Around the 8th-10th century AD, the Masorites took the liberty within themselves to add vowel signs to the original Hebrew Alphabet. The original Hebrew alphabet had only 22 letters and had no vowels. This 10th century manuscript is what all bibles base their Old Testament translations on."




The LXX is also of great importance simply because it is the oldest translation of the Old Testament in existence. The complete OT LXX comes from the 4th century; both the Codex Sinaiticus (3rd c) and the Codex Vaticanus (3rd c) are complete LXX OT translations and the oldest OT translations in existence. But the Oldest Hebrew OT, the Codex Leningrad, only comes down to us from the 11th century, thus proving the antiquity and uniqueness of the LXX. The Hebrew OT manuscripts that we use in our modern Bible's come from texts written from the 11th to 16th centuries; because of this and many other things (the vowel signs added by the Masorites and the authority the Apostles gave the LXX by using it in the NT), one can much more easily doubt the authenticity of the Hebrew manuscripts an affirm the authority of the LXX.
 
Last edited:
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#6
only a few english bible translations are based solely on the septuagint... here is a list:

charles thomson's septuagint, 1808
sir lancelot brenton's septuagint, 1851
c.a. muses' septuagint, 1954
apostolic bible polyglot, 2003
new english translation of the septuagint, 2007
the apostles' bible, 2008
orthodox study bible, 2008
eastern / greek orthodox bible, expected 2012

the only major church bodies that insist on the use of the septuagint are the eastern orthodox churches...except for the russian orthodox church which also accepts a slavonic translation of the bible
 

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#7
only a few english bible translations are based solely on the septuagint... here is a list:

charles thomson's septuagint, 1808
sir lancelot brenton's septuagint, 1851
c.a. muses' septuagint, 1954
apostolic bible polyglot, 2003
new english translation of the septuagint, 2007
the apostles' bible, 2008
orthodox study bible, 2008
eastern / greek orthodox bible, expected 2012

the only major church bodies that insist on the use of the septuagint are the eastern orthodox churches...except for the russian orthodox church which also accepts a slavonic translation of the bible
Good to know, has anyone gone back to the original hebrew to check which numbers are correct? Seems bizarre that something as simple as numbers (or at least you would think it would be simple) would be translated correct, generally don't have to deal with complicated language when dealing with numbers in any language.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#8
i just want to clarify one more thing...

i am -not- arguing that the greek septuagint is full of false doctrine or anything like that... the disagreements between the greek septuagint and the hebrew masoretic text are on minor technical points like the one i presented here

i just do not believe that the greek septuagint is -the- inerrant word of God... it is a -translation- of the word of God that has some errors in it... the hebrew masoretic text is superior

the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint...but thankfully God did not inspire them to quote from any of the passages that contain errors... praise God! :)
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#9
only a few english bible translations are based solely on the septuagint... here is a list:

charles thomson's septuagint, 1808
sir lancelot brenton's septuagint, 1851
c.a. muses' septuagint, 1954
apostolic bible polyglot, 2003
new english translation of the septuagint, 2007
the apostles' bible, 2008
orthodox study bible, 2008
eastern / greek orthodox bible, expected 2012

the only major church bodies that insist on the use of the septuagint are the eastern orthodox churches...except for the russian orthodox church which also accepts a slavonic translation of the bible

I find it very interesting how Charles Thomson, as Secretary of Congress, had translated the Septuagint.

The only reason there are so few English translations of the Septuagint is because of Luther and his attempt to "go to the source" of Scripture, used the Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts as his Old Testament. My personal understanding of this is that he was wrong and he did not "go to the source", he only went to the 8th or 10th c, when the Masorites added their vowel signs which made the original Hebrew wordings unreadable. The Jews also tampered with the Word to make it less Christocentric. They translated the wordings to conform to their antichristian mindset.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#10
i just want to clarify one more thing...

i am -not- arguing that the greek septuagint is full of false doctrine or anything like that... the disagreements between the greek septuagint and the hebrew masoretic text are on minor technical points like the one i presented here

i just do not believe that the greek septuagint is -the- inerrant word of God... it is a -translation- of the word of God that has some errors in it... the hebrew masoretic text is superior

the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint...but thankfully God did not inspire them to quote from any of the passages that contain errors... praise God! :)
How could you say that the Hebrew is the inerrant word of God when there are over 500 translations of it?

And why would you choose a OT translation which was tampered with by the Jews to be antichrist?

For example, the Hebrew (KJV) says, "6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

While the LXX says, " 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."

The Jews tampered with the Old Testament to suit their own theological antichristian biases. This is a historical fact.


Read this: Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#11
Good to know, has anyone gone back to the original hebrew to check which numbers are correct? Seems bizarre that something as simple as numbers (or at least you would think it would be simple) would be translated correct, generally don't have to deal with complicated language when dealing with numbers in any language.
my first post in this topic was an analysis of the same passage in the masoretic text...

the hebrew masoretic text does not have this contradiction in it...so it at least does not disprove itself

in fact it has methuselah dying in the same year as the flood...which is in wonderful agreement with one interpretation of the meaning of methuselah's name...'his death will bring it'

my own theory is that the chronological alterations in the septuagint were put there -deliberately- by the seventy-two jewish scholars who translated it from the hebrew according to the story of its origin

the translators were assembled in alexandria in egypt by the greek king ptolemy ii... the translators would have been under some pressure to produce a translation that would not have 'embarassed' them before the greek intellectuals of that time

this would have presented a problem for them...because the history of ancient egypt written by the egyptian priest manetho dated the beginning of ancient egypt's civilization to -before- creation according to the hebrew bible's chronology

in order to harmonize their chronology with manetho's egyptian chronology the septuagint translators inflated some of the numbers in the genesis 5 genealogy... as you can see the septuagint has the creation happening 2,256 years before the flood while the masoretic text puts the creation only 1,656 years before the flood...a difference of 600 years

it is sad but not totally shocking... throughout history many well meaning people have spread misinformation thinking they can 'help' God's case that way

evidently it did not occur to the septuagint translators to check to make sure that their numbers still added up without any problems...so the contradiction they created went unnoticed until much later
 

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#12
How could you say that the Hebrew is the inerrant word of God when there are over 500 translations of it?

And why would you choose a OT translation which was tampered with by the Jews to be antichrist?

For example, the Hebrew (KJV) says, "6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

While the LXX says, " 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."

The Jews tampered with the Old Testament to suit their own theological antichristian biases. This is a historical fact.


Read this: Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint

What the heck is a Hebrew (KJV), I assume you are talking about the King James Version, which according to what I have physically in front of me says "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure" and what is the LXX version?
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#13
my first post in this topic was an analysis of the same passage in the masoretic text...

the hebrew masoretic text does not have this contradiction in it...so it at least does not disprove itself

in fact it has methuselah dying in the same year as the flood...which is in wonderful agreement with one interpretation of the meaning of methuselah's name...'his death will bring it'

my own theory is that the chronological alterations in the septuagint were put there -deliberately- by the seventy-two jewish scholars who translated it from the hebrew according to the story of its origin

the translators were assembled in alexandria in egypt by the greek king ptolemy ii... the translators would have been under some pressure to produce a translation that would not have 'embarassed' them before the greek intellectuals of that time

this would have presented a problem for them...because the history of ancient egypt written by the egyptian priest manetho dated the beginning of ancient egypt's civilization to -before- creation according to the hebrew bible's chronology

in order to harmonize their chronology with manetho's egyptian chronology the septuagint translators inflated some of the numbers in the genesis 5 genealogy... as you can see the septuagint has the creation happening 2,256 years before the flood while the masoretic text puts the creation only 1,656 years before the flood...a difference of 600 years

it is sad but not totally shocking... throughout history many well meaning people have spread misinformation thinking they can 'help' God's case that way

evidently it did not occur to the septuagint translators to check to make sure that their numbers still added up without any problems...so the contradiction they created went unnoticed until much later
My question is: why would the Apostles have used to LXX if it is not the infallible word of God? The LXX and the Hebrew differ PROFOUNDLY from different in the quotes that are used by the NT writers from the OT. I will give you an example:

NT Quoting from the OT, Isaiah 40:13:

Romans 11:34, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"

Hebrew (KJV)

Isaiah 40:13, "Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"

LXX

Isaiah 40:13, "Who has known the mind of the Lord? and who has been his counsellor, to instruct him?"


The NT proves that the Apostles Paul was using the LXX which differs PROFOUNDLY from the Hebrew text. Why would you want to use the Hebrew then if it is not the same and even contradicts the Apostle of Christ's own words? Do not hold the word of God to no effect, this is a topic of great importance.

Read this for more (many more):

Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint
 
Last edited:

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#14
My question is: why would the Apostles have used to LXX if it is not the infallible word of God? The LXX and the Hebrew differ PROFOUNDLY from different in the quotes that are used by the NT writers from the OT. I will give you an example:

NT Quoting from the OT, Isaiah 40:13:

Romans 11:34, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"

Hebrew (KJV)

Isaiah 40:13, "Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"

LXX

Isaiah 40:13, "Who has known the mind of the Lord? and who has been his counsellor, to instruct him?"


The NT proves that the Apostles Paul was using the LXX which differs PROFOUNDLY from the Hebrew text. Why would you want to use the Hebrew then if it is not the same and even contradicts the Apostle of Christ's own words? Do not hold the word of God to no effect, this is a topic of great importance.

Read this for more (many more):

Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint
Its an interesting thing, but not really a change of concept. There is one thing to think about is one is a direct hebrew-english translation and the other is hebrew-greek-english, where as the Romans passage is greek-english. So there seems to be something in hebrew that when translated directly comes out slightly different, but nothing heretical in it.
 

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#15
Though I also find it interesting that you have not dealt with the question of this thread at all, and have no answer to my first post to you on here. . . .hmm
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#16
What the heck is a Hebrew (KJV), I assume you are talking about the King James Version, which according to what I have physically in front of me says "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure" and what is the LXX version?
I was talking about the Hebrew Old Testament KJV. That is what the KJB uses, the Hebrew manuscripts which date from 1000 to 1500 AD. The term "LXX" stands for the Septuagint (which means 70). I was quoting from a Psalm in the Septuagint (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. "
Now this is the verse that the Apostle quotes from, "Heb_10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The point that I was making was that the Hebrew OT version of Psalm 40:6 doesn't even say the same as the Septuagint, it says, "Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

I was pointing out the fact that the LXX (Septuagint) was used by the Apostles, not the Hebrew (the KJV, most english bible's, etc). This is further affirmed by this link: Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#17
Though I also find it interesting that you have not dealt with the question of this thread at all, and have no answer to my first post to you on here. . . .hmm
I did deal with it, must not have read it. Plus, I didn't understand your question.:p
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#18
Its an interesting thing, but not really a change of concept. There is one thing to think about is one is a direct hebrew-english translation and the other is hebrew-greek-english, where as the Romans passage is greek-english. So there seems to be something in hebrew that when translated directly comes out slightly different, but nothing heretical in it.
But my whole point is that the NT writers used the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and not the Hebrew Old Testament which we know of today. This is further proven by this link:

Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint

Watch this video:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s[/video]
 

CanadaNZ

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2011
560
7
0
#19
I see it now lol. I see what you mean, though neither are really a theological issue and likely can be chalked up to direct Hebrew to English translation as opposed to Hebrew to Greek to English translation. I still have not seen anything that is anti Christ in what you have shared so far.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#20
I see it now lol. I see what you mean, though neither are really a theological issue and likely can be chalked up to direct Hebrew to English translation as opposed to Hebrew to Greek to English translation. I still have not seen anything that is anti Christ in what you have shared so far.
I've got to go to sleep. ttyl.