The Septuagint was corrupted: proof from Genesis 5

i agree;

"it isn't the kjv translation" ≠ "proof of corruption"

If a Bible, claiming to be Scripture, contains even one lie, it is not a faithful witness.

Not just differences but huge differences. I am going to have to refute everything you have said with extensive quotations.

PART I
Evidently you are not familiar with the history of the Masoretic Text which goes all the way back to about 1500 BC. Neither are you familiar with the practices of the Hebrew scribes who meticulously counted even the letters of the Torah! And the proof that the Masoretic Text is the TRADITIONAL Hebrew Text was established through the Isaiah scroll (from about 200 BC) found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were no material differences for over 1,000 years.

“The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism.It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Anno Domini(AD).The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century. The Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but since 1947 missing the Torah) dates from the 10th century. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.” (Wikipedia)

What is critical to note is that the printed Rabbinic Bible – Mikraot Gedolot -- was squarely based on the Masoretic Text – not the Septuagint. And that is the text which was used for all the Reformation Bibles, included the KJV.

“The Mikraot Gedolot (or, in English, the [Second] Rabbinic Bible) was produced by Jacob ben Haim (also known as Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-1525, and is a classic printing of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim is believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.

The Mikraot Gedolot or Second Rabbinic Bible was produced and edited by Jacob ben Haim. He was a Jewish Masoretic scholar who converted (possibly out of necessity) to Christianity. He compiled all the elements of the Mikraot Gedolot, including the following individual elements...

The Mikraot Gedolot or Second Rabbinic Bible was a monumental achievement of typesetting for its day, given that the printing press was new and all the Hebrew letters, vowels and accents had to be meticulously and individually assembled into place.
Ben Hayyim used the best Hebrew manuscripts that were available to him. Although some have argued that he did not always have access to the best manuscripts, the famous massoretic [sic] scholar Ginsburg has argued that it was a good representation of the Ben Asher text. In fact, Ginsburg's own superb editions of the Hebrew Bible, printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society, were based on ben Hayyim's Second Rabbinic Bible or Mikraot Gedolot....

The Mikraot Gedolot or Second Rabbinic Bible of Ben Hayyim served as the standard text of the Hebrew Bible for nearly all later editions until modern times. It is widely recognised as an extraordinary achievement. Despite this, objections have been raised by Jewish readers, due to the fact that the first printing of the Mikraot Gedolot (the First Rabbinic Bible) was edited by Felix Pratensis, a Jew converted to Christianity. The publisher of the Second Rabbinic Bible was Daniel Bomberg, also a Christian convert from Judaism, and he had requested an imprimatur from the Pope. Thus, Jewish criticism of the Second Rabbinic Bible is largely because it was not entirely the work of Jews, and Christian converts were involved. However, the history of the times must also be understood. All religious published books in the 1500s required explicit authority from the Pope, and the publishing of books was impossible without the Pope's agreement. These conditions also applied, for example, to the Complutensian Polyglot Bible and Erasmus' editions of the Greek New Testament.

The Mikraot Gedolot or Second Rabbinic Bible of Ben Hayyim is widely accepted as a well produced, superior, and textually accurate edition of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. It was made from the best manuscripts that were available to Ben Hayyim, and great care was taken into its typesetting and production. It has stood the test of time, and was used by all subsequent translations of the Old Testament right up until modern times, when the Leningrad Codex is generally used.

The Mikraot Gedolot or Second Rabbinic Bible can be used to compare the text of the Hebrew Bible in printed Bibles today, with Medieval texts, with the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, and with the Dead Sea Scrolls. These comparisons show that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been preserved faithfully down through the centuries. Any differences are very minor, generally affecting the teamim (cantillation marks) rather than the Hebrew letters themselves.

Further, very detailed and accurate, information on the manuscript traditions of the Hebrew Bible is contained in the classic reference work of C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, in two volumes.

https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Rabbinic-Bible

Furthermore the Lord Jesus Christ Himself established the true Hebrew Tanakh (which He and all the religious leaders of His day used) and it was limited to the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Luke 24) not the 49 books of the LXX (which we will discuss further down). Whenever He said “It is written...” He was establishing the fact that the Tanakh had remained unaltered since the time of Moses.

PART II
Evidently you have no idea about the history of the Septuagint. So I will quote from The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by the outstanding Hebrew Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim, who was thoroughly familiar with Hebrew and Greek and also with the Tanakh and the LXX. Here is what he had to say about this corrupt Greek translation:

“...On the other hand, there was the intellectual view of the Scriptures - their philosophical understanding, the application to them of the results of Grecian thought and criticism. It was this which was peculiarly Hellenistic...

...What was Jewish, Palestinian, individual, concrete in the Scriptures, was only the outside - true in itself, but not the truth. There were depths beneath. Strip these stories of their nationalism; idealise the individual of the persons introduced, and you came upon abstract ideas and realities, true to all time and to all nations. But this deep symbolism was Pythagorean; this pre-existence of ideas which were the types of all outward actuality, was Platonism!... There was the mighty spell which Greek philosophy exercised on all kindred minds, and the special adaptation of the Jewish intellect to such subtle, if not deep, thinking...

...The Greek version [the LXX], like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of the Pentateuch... These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter.

Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, in which we are told how, by the advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II. had sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter, with rich presents, to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem; who in turn had selected seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable manuscript of the Old Testament... [“...Ptolemy III., who reigned from 247 to 221 b.c. In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX. version as, at least substantially, completed.” So 350 BC is completely incorrect.]

The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely by several persons, the other books of the Old Testament would naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were evidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very different qualifications for their work - the translation of the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. The version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX -- as some have supposed from the number of its translators according to Aristeas’ account - only that in that case it should have been seventy-two...

From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ‘inspiration,’ and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets, and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews...

What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew [Masoretic Text] must be regarded as the correct text. Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version.

It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars.

Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic.

Difficulties - or what seemed such - are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity...

...It must have been on the ground of the use made of the LXX. in argument, that later voices in the Synagogue declared this version to have been as great calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, and that is completion had been followed by the terrible omen of an eclipse, that lasted three days...

This is totally false. As Edersheim points out “...Whether or not the LXX. was read in the Hellenist Synagogues, and the worship conducted, wholly or partly, in Greek, must be matter of conjecture....”

But even more damaging to this idea is what Christ said in Luke 24:
25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself....
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?...
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

What were “the Scriptures” (“all the Scriptures”) to Christ and His apostles? They are defined by Jesus Himself – who is God and the Word of God – as the THREE MAJOR DIVISIONS of the Hebrew Tanakh (not the Septuagint).

THE LAW OF MOSES = Torah = the 5 books of Moses
THE PROPHETS = Neviim = 8 books
THE PSALMS = Ketuvim = 11 books

Total number of books regarded as inspired and authoritative = 24 books (split up to make 39 books in the English Old Testament).

So if Christians try to make a case for the Septuagint, they are making Christ a liar.

Wow, just another KJV thread.

***Yawn*** good night.

That is only because the Orthodox Church is in fact "the Greek Orthodox Church". And it is hardly different from the Roman Catholic Church, in that both groups believe that THE NON-CANONICAL APOCRYPHAL BOOKS ARE INSPIRED. Think about that before promoting their ideas about the Septuagint.

so in Luke 24 Jesus refers to 'Moses, the prophets, and the psalms' -- reflecting the order of the books in the Hebrew text. the septuagint follows a different ordering, with the prophets after the psalms, books of Solomon, Ruth, Job, etc.

@Nehemiah6 suggests this means septuagint translation is false. oddly enough, the kjv uses the septuagint order of books too. so..

@John146 hey didn't you say if there was one error of falsehood in the text, it's not scripture, so reject it? your friend @Nehemiah6 here is arguing that the order of the books in septuagint is corrupt, i.e. it is an error/lie. and the kjv, even the precious 1611 translation, uses this 'corrupt ordering of table of contents' -- wondering what you think about that? i'm going to bet you say, inconsequential, because, kjv can do no wrong. thanks. you're proving @Nehemiah6's argument is not good. well on 2nd thought maybe you're proving something else lol.

but @Nehemiah6, typical American republican of his day, ignores all the other evidence such as the apostles and the Lord Christ Himself quoted from septuagint between 80 & 90% of the time they reference the OT. he has reached his conclusion before he ever looks at any evidence, so he picks what supports his bias and pretends the rest of it doesn't exist.


i rather think that the right question to be asking is why does Jesus primarily ((by a wide margin)) quote the septuagint while affirming the order of table of context in masoretic?

KJV OT table of contents:

1. - Genesis
2. - Exodus
3. - Leviticus
4. - Numbers
5. - Deuteronomy
6. - Joshua
7. - Judges
8. - Ruth
9. - 1 Samuel
10. - 2 Samuel
11. - 1 Kings
12. - 2 Kings
13. - 1 Chronicles
14. - 2 Chronicles
15. - Ezra
16. - Nehemiah
17. - Esther
18. - Job
19. - Psalms
20. - Proverbs
21. - Ecclesiastes
22. - The Song of Solomon
23. - Isaiah
24. - Jeremiah
25. - Lamentations
26. - Ezekiel
27. - Daniel
28. - Hosea
29. - Joel
30. - Amos
31. - Obadiah
32. - Jonah
33. - Micah
34. - Nahum
35. - Habakkuk
36. - Zephaniah
37. - Haggai
38. - Zechariah
39. - Malachi

so by your logic @Nehemiah6 if you try to make a case for the KJV you are making Christ a liar.

by the same measure you use to judge

Table of contents, maps and other added tools is not considered Scripture my friend.

Where is that in Scripture?

Common sense. Are you saying that a lie is a faithful witness?

The KJV contains lies... plenty of them. Do you agree or disagree?

I prefer to think back to the fact that the Geneva Bible and the KJV of 1611 were both published with the Apocrypha included.

Absolutely disagree!

I figured as much. I guess your vaunted KJV doesn't have Genesis 3:4. Either that, or it's not the "faithful witness" you think it is, because it contains a lie.

Maybe it's time to stop using bad arguments for your position.

I’m not following. Please explain.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

You stated, "If a Bible, claiming to be Scripture, contains even one lie, it is not a faithful witness." The Bible contains a truthful record of lies. So, by your dogmatic logic, the KJV is not a faithful witness, because it contains one lie: the serpent's words to Eve. It contains many more lies, as spoken by false prophets, evil kings, Ananias and Sapphira, etc.

You really need to get some better arguments. It's amusingly easy to shred the ones that you use.

Might I suggest a book entitled
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
by D. A. Carson, G. K. Beale

It is a scholarly treatment of the origins of OT quotes in the NT. It asserts that about 80% of OT quotes can be traced back to the Septuagint.