The great flood

[trofimus]

The reason the early Church used the LXX so much was not necessarily because it was superior to the Hebrew texts but simply because more often than not, that was all they had and for many, it may have been all they had ever known. The LXX was written in the first or second century BC. Unfortunately, the oldest MSS of the Hebrew text that we have dates from about the same time so we do not have anything earlier to compare it with. If you prefer the LXX text, that is fine. I do not have a problem with that. Personally, I question the superiority of any translation over the original language text.

I think that the apostolic use of the LXX made the LXX sacred, because it is now the word of God (when quoted in the NT). Therefore even if the LXX was not a good translation (which is the opposite of what is known about the LXX), now it is a sacred text for Christians, because the Holy Spirit use it in the NT quotations.


Also, LXX is from the 3rd century BC, the earliest big portions of it preserved are from the 4th century AD.
MSS are from the 9th century AD, their origin is not known.

If you meant the Qumran texts from the 1st century AD, there are some portions close to MSS text, some close to LXX readings (even thoug in Hebrew). From this it is said that there existed several versions of the OT text in the first century. One was translated by the LXX, another version became later the basiss for the MSS.
The NT use of the LXX sacred the LXX line...

 

[oldhermit]

I think that the apostolic use of the LXX made the LXX sacred, because it is now the word of God (when quoted in the NT). Therefore even if the LXX was not a good translation (which is the opposite of what is known about the LXX), now it is a sacred text for Christians, because the Holy Spirit use it in the NT quotations.


Also, LXX is from the 3rd century BC, the earliest big portions of it preserved are from the 4th century AD.
MSS are from the 9th century AD, their origin is not known.

If you meant the Qumran texts from the 1st century AD, there are some portions close to MSS text, some close to LXX readings (even thoug in Hebrew). From this it is said that there existed several versions of the OT text in the first century. One was translated by the LXX, another version became later the basiss for the MSS.
The NT use of the LXX sacred the LXX line...

Okay. that is earlier than I had remembered.

When I think of preferring a translation over the original language text I cannot help but wonder about the source of the translation. Was it translated from weaker MSS or better MSS? I think in this case we may never know. This is what happened with the formation of the Erasmus text from which the KJV translation has descended. Now, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. It is a good translation. The problem is not with its accuracy of translation but with its source which was a series of far inferior Greek MSS of very late date and in some cases no Greek MSS at all. I am not at all questioning the legitimacy of the LXX. The NT writers established this very well.

 

[prove-all]

not sure what you trying to do here. but you can put the flood in after the death
of Methuselah, In fact, the flood was prophesied to happen only after Methuselah died.

well for one someone back a few pages said the flood was like 5000 years after Adam.
so I took the bible and added up the generations to see what I came up with.

so in my math I found Methuselah had died the [same year] as the flood,
at year 1656 from Adam. died before or after flood I do not know,
but I would put his death before the flood.


you said

"the flood was prophesied to happen only after Methuselah died"
I have not heard this, that Methuselah had to die before the flood.


can you give bible verses so I can update my math?

 

[trofimus]

Okay. that is earlier than I had remembered.

When I think of preferring a translation over the original language text I cannot help but wonder about the source of the translation. Was it translated from weaker MSS or better MSS? I think in this case we may never know. This is what happened with the formation of the Erasmus text from which the KJV translation has descended. Now, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. It is a good translation. The problem is not with its accuracy of translation but with its source which was a series of far inferior Greek MSS of very late date and in some cases no Greek MSS at all. I am not at all questioning the legitimacy of the LXX. The NT writers established this very well.

Regarding LXX, as you said, the NT writers authorized its readings very well. Thats why all Bible translations (including the KJV) that based their OT on the MSS readings, are quite wrong Some better translations use the MSS texts and repair its readings with the LXX, which is a little better, but still... the wrong idea in the beginning, imho.

This habit or idea to translate Christian Bibles form the Jewish texts originated in the reformation. People were fascinated by the freedom from the official roman church texts (latin) and turned to original languages.

A very good for the NT, but not so good for the OT. They did not realize that the Jewish texts were never used in the church, ever. So there is no point to go to "originals" for the OT. They got the Jewish OT, not the Christian one...

 

[oldhermit]

Regarding LXX, as you said, the NT writers authorized its readings very well. Thats why all Bible translations (including the KJV) that based their OT on the MSS readings, are quite wrong Some better translations use the MSS texts and repair its readings with the LXX, which is a little better, but still... the wrong idea in the beginning, imho.

This habit or idea to translate Christian Bibles form the Jewish texts originated in the reformation. People were fascinated by the freedom from the official roman church texts (latin) and turned to original languages.

A very good for the NT, but not so good for the OT. They did not realize that the Jewish texts were never used in the church, ever. So there is no point to go to "originals" for the OT. They got the Jewish OT, not the Christian one...

Well, like I said, if you prefer the LXX base that is fine. Personally, I think people over emphasize the importance of its use in the first century. This was not the only text from which the NT writers quoted and its wide spread use was largely due to a lack of options rather that as a matter of preference. I will give you the last word.

 

[trofimus]

Well, like I said, if you prefer the LXX base that is fine. Personally, I think people over emphasize the importance of its use in the first century. This was not the only text from which the NT writers quoted and its wide spread use was largely due to a lack of options rather that as a matter of preference. I will give you the last word.

Can you show the other texts NT writers quoted from? I agree that not all quotations in the NT are from the LXX as we have it today. Do we have these other texts? If not, it is not the argument for the MSS use in the Church, is it?

 

[oldhermit]

Can you show the other texts NT writers quoted from? I agree that not all quotations in the NT are from the LXX as we have it today. Do we have these other texts? If not, it is not the argument for the MSS use in the Church, is it?

Many English versions use the Masoretic text as its base source but none of which I know do this exclusively. All appeal to the LXX as well. Among scholars and translators, the Masoeretic text is widely considered as the preferred text and is chosen as the base for these translations. You have to ask yourself why this is. I do not think there is any conspiracy or any nefarious intent in this. I think their concerns are legitimate. It might do to simply step back and do a bit of judicious research to find out WHY they have mate these choices on both sides of the isle.

 

[trofimus]

Many English versions use the Masoretic text as its base source but none of which I know do this exclusively. All appeal to the LXX as well. Among scholars and translators, the Masoeretic text is widely considered as the preferred text and is chosen as the base for these translations. You have to ask yourself why this is. I do not think there is any conspiracy or any nefarious intent in this. I think their concerns are legitimate. It might do to simply step back and do a bit of judicious research to find out WHY they have mate these choices on both sides of the isle.

Why- because of the reformation principle ("go back to original languages"). That is known. Thats is why this is only for the protestant Bibles. The orthodox bibles or the catholic ones do not use the MSS at all.

Therefore it is not so much about "widely considered among scholars and translators", but rather "widely considered among protestant scholars and translators"... and why? Because of the reformation principle which is best for the NT, but not so good choice for the OT.

But nevermind As you said, many translations at least look at the LXX and fix the errors in the MSS text. But for example the KJV does not do that at all and goes totally in the rabbinic line. Not even saying about not so good text for the NT translation too.

 

[oldhermit]

Why- because of the reformation principle ("go back to original languages"). That is known. Thats is why this is only for the protestant Bibles. The orthodox bibles or the catholic ones do not use the MSS at all.

Therefore it is not so much about "widely considered among scholars and translators", but rather "widely considered among protestant scholars and translators"... and why? Because of the reformation principle which is best for the NT, but not so good choice for the OT.

But nevermind As you said, many translations at least look at the LXX and fix the errors in the MSS text. But for example the KJV does not do that at all and goes totally in the rabbinic line.

That simply is not true. At one time it may have been but the fact is that almost all Protestants use a translation of the Bible that reflects both the MT and the LXX. The same is true of Eastern Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church reads the same translations as we do.

 

[trofimus]

That simply is not true. At one time it may have been but the fact is that almost all Protestants use a translation of the Bible that reflects both the MT and the LXX. The same is true of Eastern Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church reads the same translations as we do.

Well, there is greek orthodox church, using Greek (LXX and patriarchal text of the NT), then russian orthodox church (using probably something in Russian) and orthodox church in various countries using Bibles in their own languages and they do not have much choice.

So in for example USA they used NKJV, mainly because the NT there is translated from the Textus Receptus that is closer to the byzantine Greek texts. Not because they love MSS, but because they had nothing bettter.

But now, when they have a new official translation - the orthodox study bible, they probably will use this more. And guess what - it is translated from the LXX (the OT) and patriarchal text (the NT).

 

[oldhermit]

Well, there is greek orthodox church, using Greek (LXX and patriarchal text of the NT), then russian orthodox church (using probably something in Russian) and orthodox church in various countries using Bibles in their own languages and they do not have much choice.

So in for example USA they used NKJV, mainly because the NT there is translated from the Textus Receptus that is closer to the byzantine Greek texts. Not because they love MSS, but because they had nothing bettter.

But now, when they have a new official translation - the orthodox study bible, they probably will use this more. And guess what - it is translated from the LXX (the OT) and patriarchal text (the NT).

To my knowledge, there is no English translation that is based exclusively on either the MT or the LXX, either from the so-called Orthodox Church or the protestant Church. They all use both texts to create the best possible translation.

 

[trofimus]

To my knowledge, there is no English translation that is based exclusively on either the MT or the LXX, either from the so-called Orthodox Church or the protestant Church. They all use both texts to create the best possible translation.

KJV - only MSS for OT, only MT for NT
OSV - mainly LXX for OT, MT for the NT (similar to MT)
NKJV - MSS for OT, MT for NT

The rest will probably be some mixture for the OT and critical UBS text for NT...

But the point was that the orthodox or catholic sholars do not admire the MSS text. Its a protestant issue, mainly.

 

[oldhermit]

KJV - only MSS for OT, only MT for NT
OSV - mainly LXX for OT, MT for the NT (similar to MT)
NKJV - MSS for OT, MT for NT

The rest will probably be some mixture for the OT and critical UBS text for NT...

But the point was that the orthodox or catholic sholars do not admire the MSS text. Its a protestant issue, mainly.

Well, you have to understand that I have no regard whatsoever for any opinions of the so-called orthodox church but, I think you will find that neither orthodox scholars nor protestant scholars rely exclusively on either text.

 

[trofimus]

Well, you have to understand that I have no regard whatsoever for any opinions of the so-called orthodox church but, I think you will find that neither orthodox scholars nor protestant scholars rely exclusively on either text.

I was just pointing out that the masoretic text is not so generally accepted as the best as you proposed... the orthodox or catholic church is not my cup of tea, too. But we must realize they exist and we are not the only ones.

Its quite hard to react on the word "exclusively", because if they change even one word in LXX (for example it is not preserved in the lxx manuscripts we have) and take one from the masoretic text, it is not exclusively anymore. But still, they do not do so because they regard the masoretic text to be generaly better or not even to say the best.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, and by the same token, there are different versions of the LXX and these do not always agree. Whenever a consensus cannot be reached between variants of the LXX, translators will usually fall back on the Hebrew MSS.

OldHermit,,,, I agree but when I speak of LXX I am talking about the Alexandrian dialect (Koine Greek) in which the Septuagint version was made. Here 70 scribes meticulously copied the Hebrew scrolls.

 

[trofimus]

OK, this thread is about the Flood, not about the LXX vs Mss, so... can anybody who holds the idea of the planetary disaster destroying everything completele tell me, when the Flood took place?

Remember, it must be before all known civilizations. Before China, Egypt, Sumer...

 

[dcontroversal]

well for one someone back a few pages said the flood was like 5000 years after Adam.
so I took the bible and added up the generations to see what I came up with.

so in my math I found Methuselah had died the [same year] as the flood,
at year 1656 from Adam. died before or after flood I do not know,
but I would put his death before the flood.


you said

"the flood was prophesied to happen only after Methuselah died"
I have not heard this, that Methuselah had to die before the flood.


can you give bible verses so I can update my math?

If I remember right it is based upon the literal meaning of Methuselah's name.....and a supposed prophecy given unto Enoch...

I googled this just to show you what I was saying above.....not that I agree or disagree.....because there are variations on the interpretations of his name....the below came from the website Koinonia House and was part of a statement by Mr. Missler.

The Flood of Noah did not come as a surprise. It had been preached on for four generations. But something strange happened when Enoch was 65, from which time "he walked with God." Enoch was given a prophecy that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld; but as soon as he died, the flood would be sent forth.
Enoch named his son to reflect this prophecy. The name Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means "death"[SUP]5[/SUP] ; and from shalach, which means "to bring," or "to send forth." Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, "his death shall bring."

 

[tooldtocare]

 

[jaybird88]

We all know this story of the old testiment. How God flooded the world, and the only people saved where two of each species of animals and Noah and his family.
After doing a little research, i discovered somthing disturbing.
We know of the other ancient civilizations of that time. And there have been written records kept and written during that time that the flood was supposed to happen. And none of them mentioned being drowned by water or anything regarding a flood.
By this, people conclude that the flood never happened.

Now, lol, Im not saying that I beleive this but I want to know what you all think.

Oh and please dont get too heated. The threads next door can hear ya you know

history says the opposite, most all the ancient civilizations talk of a great flood, Americas, Egypt, Indus vally, indo china, Polynesians. the flood is always global and never local.

 

[Deacon_D]

The answer is very simple:

You cant get the age of the Earth (and timing of other events like Flood) by just counting the life spans of genealogies in the massoretic text of Genesis.
These are not complete.

There were men on this planet for hundreds of million years even before Adam. But Adam was different God gave Adam a soul which was lacking in the other people. The flood wiped out all but Noah and his family. But even today they are finding traces of people that was here, in our genetic profile. Strange that we Carrie 1-3% of ancient man proven by DNA.