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

[Scotth1960]

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

If the Septuagint is wrong in Genesis, that still does not logically prove that the Hebrew Masoretic text is never wrong, and is without error. That is still a possibility. Also, you haven't proved that Brenton's text is the Septuagint: you are merely assuming that it is. Who has the original Greek text? Also, you are assuming the Hebrew Masoretic text is the original Hebrew text. Who has the original Hebrew text? This Hebrew text dates from no earlier than 700 AD. The Greek Septuagint is a translation of a much older Hebrew text, perhaps the original Hebrew text itself, and dates from 200 BC.
Also, the Hebrew text is proven to be in error in Isaiah 53:11. The Masoretic Rabbinic text does not have the Hebrew word for "light". The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and the Greek Septuagint both have "light" in Isaiah 53:11. The KJV does not live up to its own teaching of Isaiah 8:16,20. There is no light in the KJV Bible in Isaiah 53:11! See Isaiah 8:16,20 KJV.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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.

actually the practice among christians of bypassing the greek septuagint in favor of going back to the hebrew text dates much further back than luther...

the syriac pe****ta translation produced in the second century AD was based mostly on a hebrew text 'ancestral' to the masoretic text... mesrob's armenian translation was based on the pe****ta and so indirectly based on the proto-masoretic hebrew text

also jerome's latin vulgate translation from the fourth century AD was based mostly on a hebrew text ancestral to the masoretic text... in a few places jerome also used symmachus' greek text and theodotion's greek text...which were both based on the same proto-masoretic hebrew text as the vulgate

the vowel signs in the masoretic text don't make the original wording unreadable... the original consonants are still there...and the hebrew was originally written without vowels to begin with so the masoretes were not replacing any existing vowel system

the masoretic vowels give one possible pronunciation of the hebrew words...which in most cases does not disagree with the septuagint... in some cases the septuagint seems to have been translated under the assumption of a different set of vowels for a particular word

the hebrew masoretic text contains many prophecies and types of christ...so if the masoretes were attempting to produce a 'dechristianized' hebrew version as some people claim...then they failed miserably and left the most obvious messianic passages cited in the new testament completely unaltered... this is really more of a conspiracy theory than anything else

 

[NiceneChristian]

actually the practice among christians of bypassing the greek septuagint in favor of going back to the hebrew text dates much further back than luther...

the syriac pe****ta translation produced in the second century AD was based mostly on a hebrew text 'ancestral' to the masoretic text... mesrob's armenian translation was based on the pe****ta and so indirectly based on the proto-masoretic hebrew text

also jerome's latin vulgate translation from the fourth century AD was based mostly on a hebrew text ancestral to the masoretic text... in a few places jerome also used symmachus' greek text and theodotion's greek text...which were both based on the same proto-masoretic hebrew text as the vulgate

the vowel signs in the masoretic text don't make the original wording unreadable... the original consonants are still there...and the hebrew was originally written without vowels to begin with so the masoretes were not replacing any existing vowel system

the masoretic vowels give one possible pronunciation of the hebrew words...which in most cases does not disagree with the septuagint... in some cases the septuagint seems to have been translated under the assumption of a different set of vowels for a particular word

the hebrew masoretic text contains many prophecies and types of christ...so if the masoretes were attempting to produce a 'dechristianized' hebrew version as some people claim...then they failed miserably and left the most obvious messianic passages cited in the new testament completely unaltered... this is really more of a conspiracy theory than anything else

If they in fact did not change it, then why does the oldest complete codex (Codex Leningrad) say something totally antichristian and contrary to what Christ said in the Gospels? I quote from Psalm 82:6-7 of the New Jerusalem Bible which uses the Codex Leningrad as its base, the oldest extant Hebrew bible in existence. It says something totally contrary to what the regular bible says, proving that the Jews did in fact alter the word to make it antichristian.

Look here:

6 I had thought, "Are you gods, are all of you sons of the Most High?"
7 No! you will die as human beings do, as one man, princes, you will fall.'
(Psalm*82:6-7*NJB)


This is directly refuting the interpretation that Christ gave it Joh 10:34-35 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"



The true translation is found in the LXX and in other Hebrew translations (these Hebrew translations were likely influenced by the Septuagint):

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you children of the Most High.
7 But ye die as men, and fall as one of the princes.





How do we get the exact opposite of what Christ said in the oldest extant Hebrew codex in existence (Codex Leningrad)? Is God a liar? Someone (a Jew) had obviously tampered with it to make it say the exact opposite of Christ. Now we do get the proper translation in the KJV and other versions, but this is likely because of influences from the Septuagint and other proper translations... Thus, this proves that the Jews did in fact alter the word in order to make it antichristian. How can we get the exact opposite of what Christ said? Its not possible unless they purposely altered it.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

If they in fact did not change it, then why does the oldest complete codex (Codex Leningrad) say something totally antichristian and contrary to what Christ said in the Gospels? I quote from Psalm 82:6-7 of the New Jerusalem Bible which uses the Codex Leningrad as its base, the oldest extant Hebrew bible in existence. It says something totally contrary to what the regular bible says, proving that the Jews did in fact alter the word to make it antichristian.

Look here:

6 I had thought, "Are you gods, are all of you sons of the Most High?"
7 No! you will die as human beings do, as one man, princes, you will fall.'
(Psalm*82:6-7*NJB)


This is directly refuting the interpretation that Christ gave it Joh 10:34-35 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"



The true translation is found in the LXX and in other Hebrew translations (these Hebrew translations were likely influenced by the Septuagint):

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you children of the Most High.
7 But ye die as men, and fall as one of the princes.





How do we get the exact opposite of what Christ said in the oldest extant Hebrew codex in existence (Codex Leningrad)? Is God a liar? Someone (a Jew) had obviously tampered with it to make it say the exact opposite of Christ. Now we do get the proper translation in the KJV and other versions, but this is likely because of influences from the Septuagint and other proper translations... Thus, this proves that the Jews did in fact alter the word in order to make it antichristian. How can we get the exact opposite of what Christ said? Its not possible unless they purposely altered it.

that one is actually just a translation error from the hebrew into english...

in ancient hebrew there were no question marks... 'ye are gods' could be translated just as it appears...or taken as a question...'ye are gods?'...which is where the 'are ye gods?' translation in the new jerusalem bible comes from

so in this case the masoretic text and septuagint and new testament quotation are in full agreement...and it was just this one faulty translation that made it seem like there was a discrepancy

the other bibles that are based on the leningrad codex of the masoretic text get this passage correct... specifically i verified this in the KJV and NIV and HCSB and NKJV and NLT and ESV and NASB and CEV which are all translated from the biblia hebraica stuttgartensia edition of the leningrad codex

 

[NiceneChristian]

that one is actually just a translation error from the hebrew into english...

in ancient hebrew there were no question marks... 'ye are gods' could be translated just as it appears...or taken as a question...'ye are gods?'...which is where the 'are ye gods?' translation in the new jerusalem bible comes from

so in this case the masoretic text and septuagint and new testament quotation are in full agreement...and it was just this one faulty translation that made it seem like there was a discrepancy

the other bibles that are based on the leningrad codex of the masoretic text get this passage correct... specifically i verified this in the KJV and NIV and HCSB and NKJV and NLT and ESV and NASB and CEV which are all translated from the biblia hebraica stuttgartensia edition of the leningrad codex

That still doesn't explain this "misprint" because the Jewish scribes would never have allowed the word to be mis -copied or misprinted. The modern bible scholars say that they Jews were very meticulous in their copying of the Old Testament; so this means that a misprint is not likely at all to occur.

You still didn't address the fact that the Leningrad codex says "NO" in psalm 82:6. How could the scribes have copied the text to where it says the exact opposite of what it really is supposed to say? It doesn't make any sense unless the copiers purposely conspired to make the text less christocentric and more antichristian.
Plus, the New Jerusalem Bible translators were extremely meticulous in their translation of the Hebrew and chose the most literal and accurate possible technique.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

That still doesn't explain this "misprint" because the Jewish scribes would never have allowed the word to be mis -copied or misprinted. The modern bible scholars say that they Jews were very meticulous in their copying of the Old Testament; so this means that a misprint is not likely at all to occur.

You still didn't address the fact that the Leningrad codex says "NO" in psalm 82:6. How could the scribes have copied the text to where it says the exact opposite of what it really is supposed to say? It doesn't make any sense unless the copiers purposely conspired to make the text less christocentric and more antichristian.
Plus, the New Jerusalem Bible translators were extremely meticulous in their translation of the Hebrew and chose the most literal and accurate possible technique.

i just checked my biblia hebraica stuttgartensia edition of the leningrad codex...and it actually -doesn't- say 'no' in psalm 82:6

the new jerusalem bible translators took the liberty of -adding- the 'no' in their rendering of the passage

 

[NiceneChristian]

i just checked my biblia hebraica stuttgartensia edition of the leningrad codex...and it actually -doesn't- say 'no' in psalm 82:6

the new jerusalem bible translators took the liberty of -adding- the 'no' in their rendering of the passage

How do you know that it isn't the other way around: that the bibles you are reading deducted the "no" (psalm 82:6) from the translation but the New Jerusalem translators translated it correctly the way the original stated it? Because the NJB translators were very very meticulous in giving us the most literal and accurate text possible.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

How do you know that it isn't the other way around: that the bibles you are reading deducted the "no" (psalm 82:6) from the translation but the New Jerusalem translators translated it correctly the way the original stated it? Because the NJB translators were very very meticulous in giving us the most literal and accurate text possible.

because i have an actual copy of the leningrad codex of the masoretic text and i checked there...

 

[NiceneChristian]

because i have an actual copy of the leningrad codex of the masoretic text and i checked there...

You read Hebrew?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You read Hebrew?

i read some hebrew...and i can look up any words i don't recognize...

i did not find the hebrew word for 'no' anywhere in that passage

 

[SantoSubito]

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.

You hit on one of the major reasons I think the Greek and Latin texts should be given more clout than they currently are, because unlike Hebrew, Latin and Greek never died out as a language. So in the Greek and Latin texts theres not the ambiguity that you have with the Hebrew.

 

[SantoSubito]

How do you know that it isn't the other way around: that the bibles you are reading deducted the "no" (psalm 82:6) from the translation but the New Jerusalem translators translated it correctly the way the original stated it? Because the NJB translators were very very meticulous in giving us the most literal and accurate text possible.

Not quite sure where the NJB translators got the word "no" because I checked my Vulgate and it doesn't have the word for "no" in the passage. I also checked my DR and CV (both translations from the Vulgate) and neither of them have the word no in Psalm 82:6 (Psalm 81:6 in the DR and CV).

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Not quite sure where the NJB translators got the word "no" because I checked my Vulgate and it doesn't have the word for "no" in the passage. I also checked my DR and CV (both translations from the Vulgate) and neither of them have the word no in Psalm 82:6 (Psalm 81:6 in the DR and CV).

i am guessing they reasoned that it would be blasphemous to call human beings gods...so they would have assumed the passage could have God calling the people gods...

then they might have figured that it was not a statement but a rhetorical question...since the hebrew technically allows it even though it is not the most natural reading...with the answer being 'no'...which they supplied in their rendering of the text

 

[SantoSubito]

i am guessing they reasoned that it would be blasphemous to call human beings gods...so they would have assumed the passage could have God calling the people gods...

then they might have figured that it was not a statement but a rhetorical question...since the hebrew technically allows it even though it is not the most natural reading...with the answer being 'no'...which they supplied in their rendering of the text

The NJB can be quite dynamic at times and this appears to be one of those instances. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the NJB it's one of the best translations out there, but sometimes it's a little less literal than I would like and unfortunately it transliterates the Divine name (which is something I'm not a fan of)

 

[Shwagga]

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.

In fact if what you're saying is true about Luther, then Luther was going to the source when he was referring to Hebrew. The Masoretes generally are dated from the 6th to 11th century A.D., but the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew scriptures we have dates to the 11th century (Leningrad B19a). However, you are right in that they added vowel points (nikood, in Hebrew) but that is all they did. How do you come to the conclusion that the original Hebrew wording became unreadable due to vowel points? Can you read the original Hebrew to test if it's not understandable? If you look at any Israeli newspaper or any textbook in Hebrew you will not find any vowel points. Hebrew is completely readable and understandable with and without vowel points. So, the idea the Hebrew suddenly became unreadable (by that I assume you mean you can't understand it) is very false.

You also claim that "Jews also tampered with the Word to make it less Christocentic. They translated the wordings to conform to their antichristian mindset.". Really? Now this is starting to sound more like a conspiracy theory, no offense. So, you are claiming that Jews from the 6th-11th century A.D. translated the Hebrew Bible to make it antichristian. Firstly, what exactly would they be translating? Do you think that the Masoretic textual tradition is a translation? Second, the idea Jews wanted to corrupt what they believe to be God's Word in order to make it antichristian is based on absolutely no facts and is extremely offensive.

If we just go with your theory for a minute here and say OK the Masoretic text is corrupted... Fine, now let's go back to the Dead Sea Scrolls which are one thousand years older than the OLDEST Masoretic text and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls agreed with the Masoretic Text word for word and letter for letter! This eliminates the theory that the text was ever corrupted to become "antichristian" or "less Christocentric", in point of fact I can show you Christianity and Christ all over the Masoretic Text!

Of course in other places there are minor textual variants, which is common with any type of ancient manuscripts. But never does it make any major changes that would effect doctrine (or somehow turn it "antichristian"). The differences were not a matter of accurately handing down the text or transmission of the text but simply the origin of the tradition, like for example you would have one word spelled two different ways; one being the popular spelling of that day and one simply just using a different ancient textual tradition. But neither of which effect any overall different meaning or somehow make the text "antichristian".

 

[SantoSubito]

In fact if what you're saying is true about Luther, then Luther was going to the source when he was referring to Hebrew. The Masoretes generally are dated from the 6th to 11th century A.D., but the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew scriptures we have dates to the 11th century (Leningrad B19a). However, you are right in that they added vowel points (nikood, in Hebrew) but that is all they did. How do you come to the conclusion that the original Hebrew wording became unreadable due to vowel points? Can you read the original Hebrew to test if it's not understandable? If you look at any Israeli newspaper or any textbook in Hebrew you will not find any vowel points. Hebrew is completely readable and understandable with and without vowel points. So, the idea the Hebrew suddenly became unreadable (by that I assume you mean you can't understand it) is very false.

You also claim that "Jews also tampered with the Word to make it less Christocentic. They translated the wordings to conform to their antichristian mindset.". Really? Now this is starting to sound more like a conspiracy theory, no offense. So, you are claiming that Jews from the 6th-11th century A.D. translated the Hebrew Bible to make it antichristian. Firstly, what exactly would they be translating? Do you think that the Masoretic textual tradition is a translation? Second, the idea Jews wanted to corrupt what they believe to be God's Word in order to make it antichristian is based on absolutely no facts and is extremely offensive.

If we just go with your theory for a minute here and say OK the Masoretic text is corrupted... Fine, now let's go back to the Dead Sea Scrolls which are one thousand years older than the OLDEST Masoretic text and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls agreed with the Masoretic Text word for word and letter for letter! This eliminates the theory that the text was ever corrupted to become "antichristian" or "less Christocentric", in point of fact I can show you Christianity and Christ all over the Masoretic Text!

Of course in other places there are minor textual variants, which is common with any type of ancient manuscripts. But never does it make any major changes that would effect doctrine (or somehow turn it "antichristian"). The differences were not a matter of accurately handing down the text or transmission of the text but simply the origin of the tradition, like for example you would have one word spelled two different ways; one being the popular spelling of that day and one simply just using a different ancient textual tradition. But neither of which effect any overall different meaning or somehow make the text "antichristian".

I think his point as well as mine is that the Masoretic text should not be considered the be all end all of Bible translation. Both the LXX translators and St. Jerome had access to texts that have been lost to time and their translations (The Septuagint and Vulgate respectively) are invaluable to translating the Bible.

 

[Shwagga]

I think his point as well as mine is that the Masoretic text should not be considered the be all end all of Bible translation. Both the LXX translators and St. Jerome had access to texts that have been lost to time and their translations (The Septuagint and Vulgate respectively) are invaluable to translating the Bible.

I don't see that as being NiceneChristian's point. He claimed that the Masoretic textual tradition somehow corrupted the Hebrew which is easily debunked by the fact that we have Dead Sea Scrolls to confirm that the Masoretic Text is nearly identical to manuscripts thousands of years older than it. So if your point is that translations (which by the way there are many other translations besides the LXX and vulgate) are more reliable than a manuscript, that is a completely different issue. Simply, my point that the Masoretic Text is not corrupted and it's also not a translation.

 

[NiceneChristian]

I don't see that as being NiceneChristian's point. He claimed that the Masoretic textual tradition somehow corrupted the Hebrew which is easily debunked by the fact that we have Dead Sea Scrolls to confirm that the Masoretic Text is nearly identical to manuscripts thousands of years older than it. So if your point is that translations (which by the way there are many other translations besides the LXX and vulgate) are more reliable than a manuscript, that is a completely different issue. Simply, my point that the Masoretic Text is not corrupted and it's also not a translation.

That information was just what I read about the Masoretics on the internet, and the early Church Fathers. I think I am beginning to change my mind a bit now though because of this website that I just found. You should read it, its very interesting:
The Septuagint in the New Testament

Well, its all very interesting now that I have the facts from that website. Both the Masoretic text and the LXX were quoted in the NT.

The last quote of what this man said is very true,


"In my view, then, the ideal Old Testament will be based on the Septuagint as the primary source, and will include extensive footnotes including significant variant readings from all other sources, including the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Fathers of the Church."

 

[Shwagga]

That information was just what I read about the Masoretics on the internet, and the early Church Fathers. I think I am beginning to change my mind a bit now though because of this website that I just found. You should read it, its very interesting:
The Septuagint in the New Testament

Well, its all very interesting now that I have the facts from that website. Both the Masoretic text and the LXX were quoted in the NT.

The last quote of what this man said is very true,


"In my view, then, the ideal Old Testament will be based on the Septuagint as the primary source, and will include extensive footnotes including significant variant readings from all other sources, including the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Fathers of the Church."

I'm glad to see you are changing your position. I really hope you will take back what you said about Jews changing their holy book to make it unchristian, nothing could be further from the truth. Through history Jews have been wanting to preserve our (Jewish and Christian) holy scriptures and trying to avoid corruption by all means. I've visited the website that you've provided, before. I think it is interesting to know where the New Testament quotes the Hebrew and where it quotes the Greek.

As for your own view of Greek supremacy... I don't know why you would want a translation of the Hebrew over a manuscript of the original Hebrew autographs, but that's your prerogative.

Lord bless you.

 

[NiceneChristian]

I'm glad to see you are changing your position. I really hope you will take back what you said about Jews changing their holy book to make it unchristian, nothing could be further from the truth. Through history Jews have been wanting to preserve our (Jewish and Christian) holy scriptures and trying to avoid corruption by all means. I've visited the website that you've provided, before. I think it is interesting to know where the New Testament quotes the Hebrew and where it quotes the Greek.

As for your own view of Greek supremacy... I don't know why you would want a translation of the Hebrew over a manuscript of the original Hebrew autographs, but that's your prerogative.

Lord bless you.

The Greek Septuagint was majorly quote by the NT writers, that's why, and also because I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian.