Which Bible?

[trofimus]

Exactly our point, more than one Bible creates confusion and doubt in the word of God.

What perfect Bible did the generation in 1610 (before KJV) in England have?

 

[KJV1611]

too many numbers make head spin my.


DEUTERONOMY 10:22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt

with threescore and ten persons;

and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.

the English word Persons includes everybody.



to me it looks like:

the ot likes the number 70... it's one of those nice round numbers.

Stephen uses 75.
the only text that uses the actual number 75 is the lxx

46:27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

Genesis

Joseph only had two kids Ephraim and Manasseh where does ""nine souls" come from? There are no verses in any bible that I know of that say Joseph had nine kids.

 

[John146]

Joseph only had two kids Ephraim and Manasseh where does ""nine souls" come from? There are no verses in any bible that I know of that say Joseph had nine kids.

Funny to me that these guys are focusing on the numbers 70 and 75 and not what the Scripture actually says. You accurately gave the answer to this apparent contradiction.

 

[trofimus]

Joseph only had two kids Ephraim and Manasseh where does ""nine souls" come from? There are no verses in any bible that I know of that say Joseph had nine kids.

Its in the Septuagint.

Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

Stephen most probably used the Septuagint version. Which is our point.


MSS OT text:
With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all. (NIV)

Septuagint OT text:
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

 

[John146]

Its in the Septuagint.

Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

Stephen most probably used the LXX version. Which is our point.


MSS OT:
With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all. (NIV)

LXX OT:
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrian manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years after the New Testament was already complete.

If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

 

[Grace777x70]

I beg to differ brother. If we don't have something certain to offer to the world, then we have nothing. The word of God says about itself that it is truth. We must be able to claim that we have the word of truth from God.

We have the Lord Jesus Christ to offer the world. The hearing of "Him" brings faith to be saved. Christ is our certainty. Bringing them to a "book" isn't bringing them to Christ Himself.

 

[John146]

We have the Lord Jesus Christ to offer the world. The hearing of "Him" brings faith to be saved. Christ is our certainty. Bringing them to a "book" isn't bringing them to Christ Himself.

Yes, that's what I had stated. The gospel is to be taken to the whole world. God never promised to preserve His words in every language. There are those of us that believe God has preserved His word in the KJV. I am a Bible believer who believes every word of God in the KJV. I have something certain I can read, study, and trust. I don't need to go to any commentaries, Greek lexicons, or any other version to get the whole counsel of God.

 

[trofimus]

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrian manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years after the New Testament was already complete.

If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

I agree that LXX differs significantly from massoretic texts.

I agree that the oldest manuscripts of LXX we have preserverd today are from the 2nd/3rd century. But the same applies to the oldest NT texts. They are in the same codexes as LXX (Its another proof that LXX was used widely in church).

On the other hand, the oldest manuscripts of massoretic hebrew text are from the 9th century. So LXX still wins in the anciety (is it a word?) of the preserved copies.

But it is not true that we cannot know whether the LXX was used by the first church or that LXX iw a horrible translation.

The opposite is true.

First church used Septuagint, its just accepted historical fact:

Septuagint | Theopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use

The precision of LXX was proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You should also realize that most of the OT quotations in NT are much more closer to LXX than to "Hebrew" text used by KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

Where did Stephen get the number of 75, then? Where is the source for 5 wives? Why did he count wives and did not use the common number known to others?

Why does LXX have 75 in Genesis?

I don't know... other places in the bible that you and I may not be aware of, oral tradition, inspiration of God. As for LXX, I think that may be because it has Joseph having 9 kids instead of the 2 mentioned in the bible.

I don't question the number 75 because I have no reason to question it. Stephens account and the Genesis account are talking two different things and that's why they have two different numbers.

 

[John146]

The Modern Versions are absolutely wrong for using "love" instead of "charity".

Not only is the use of the word "charity" as found in the King James Bible and many others not wrong, but it is in fact more accurate than the use of the simple word "love". Why? Well, let's look at 1 Corinthians 13 for a moment and then compare the characteristics of "charity" to those of "love" as found in some other Scriptures. We will see that by translating the word agape as "love" instead of "charity", the modern versions in fact create several contradictions.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 we read that CHARITY "doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own". Charity as well "thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth". However when the new versions tell us that "love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (NKJV), then this creates several direct contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

If "love seeks not her own and thinks no evil", and if "love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth" then what do we do with the following Scriptures where "love" (agape) clearly seeks her own and does rejoice in evil and not in the truth?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God."

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them."

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..."

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness."

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Charity cannot be used in this way. Charity is the type of love a Christian should have toward fellow Christians. Charity is the bond of perfectness between the brethren.

 

[trofimus]

I don't know... other places in the bible that you and I may not be aware of, oral tradition, inspiration of God. As for LXX, I think that may be because it has Joseph having 9 kids instead of the 2 mentioned in the bible.

I don't question the number 75 because I have no reason to question it. Stephens account and the Genesis account are talking two different things and that's why they have two different numbers.

Is not the explanation that Stephen simply used the LXX reading much clearer than to bring oral tradition, inspiration etc in the discussion?

BTW what was the perfect preserved text for the generation who died in 1610 in England?

 

[KJV1611]

Its in the Septuagint.

Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

Stephen most probably used the Septuagint version. Which is our point.


MSS OT text:
With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all. (NIV)

Septuagint OT text:
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

There are no records in any bible that I know of that state Joseph had nine sons, especially at the time Jacob's family came to Egypt. Do you know of any?

 

[trofimus]

There are no records in any bible that I know of that state Joseph had nine sons, especially at the time Jacob's family came to Egypt. Do you know of any?

Yes, I know of some... its the link in that post Open it.

Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

If you are asking if there is some whole English Bible translation based on LXX source for OT... I do not know, try to look at:

Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? - Christianity Stack Exchange

 

[KJV1611]

Is not the explanation that Stephen simply used the LXX reading much clearer than to bring oral tradition, inspiration etc in the discussion?

BTW what was the perfect preserved text for the generation who died in 1610 in England?

Stephen wasn't quoting Genesis 46. Stephen is talking about the number of Jacobs family that came with him to Egypt. Genesis 46 gives the number of Jacobs seed that entered Egypt at anytime in their lives. Some came up with Jacob and some were already in Egypt. Even LXX says that, they just changed the number of Josephs children from 2 to 9.

 

[trofimus]

Stephen wasn't quoting Genesis 46. Stephen is talking about the number of Jacobs family that came with him to Egypt. Genesis 46 gives the number of Jacobs seed that entered Egypt at anytime in their lives. Some came up with Jacob and some were already in Egypt. Even LXX says that, they just changed the number of Josephs children from 2 to 9.

Its your opinion because you want to justify the number "70" in your OT For me much simpler explanation is that Stephen (like the rest of the first church) used LXX and therefore used the number 75.

 

[garee]

Jerome was making the translation (Vulgate) to Latin, for Romans. So he used the Roman names for gods.

Its not Jerome's translation if it is the word of God. God's interpretation..

As the god of this world mimics God who has no form through the philosophies of men as Greek gods, turning that upside down, God mimics them to expose the lie . Just as what God calls separate, man under the influences of the god of this world calls together .Therefore calling evil good. And what God calls darkness Satan calls light(etc.
I think there are plenty of reasons that are hidden in that parable Like providing the proper authority as to the spiritual meaning with an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Two is the number God uses to represent Himself as a Father and Son all through the scriptures, together to represent the mutual work of submission. The Father and Son working as one God.

The Son of man as that seen represents the word of God that became flesh. Having it in respect to Paul, as a god coming in the likeness of men. Usurps the true messenger not seen, Christ, our Fathers messenger.

Strongs lexicon...2060 Hermes {her-mace'} perhaps from 2046;; n pr m
AV - Mercurius 1, Hermes a Christian 1; 2 Mercurius or Hermes = "herald of the gods" 1) a Greek deity called by the Romans Mercurius (Mercury) 2) a certain Christian

While God as a father, not seen is represented by Barnabas (Zeus) that means the father of helps.

And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. Act 14:11

Satan is the author of the philosophies of men (Greek mythology.)He deceives the whole world as the one author of all the relions of this world seeing he needs human form to works his lies out.

And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Act 14:12

God's works uses two in that way .

Strongs lexicon... The father (Jupiter or Zeus = "a father of helps" 1) Baranabus in respect to and corresponds to the Roman Jupiter, as that not seen,

and again Son as mercury in respect to Paul a messenger. .

You could say it backfired. And what is meant as evil God turned it to mean good. when and if we do rightly divide it seeking His approval.


Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.Act 17:22

The same principle of two as one is used to draw out His people from Egypt One to represent the father not seen (Moses) and Arron to represent the Son of man as that seen. Two by two.

And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. And he said, O my LORD, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.Exo 4:10

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, I know of some... its the link in that post Open it.

Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

If you are asking if there is some whole English Bible translation based on LXX source for OT... I do not know, try to look at:

Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? - Christianity Stack Exchange

That's the same passage we've been talking about - Genesis 46. I'm talking about other places in the bible where 9 children are mentioned. To me it looks like LXX changed Genesis 46 to the number to 9 to make the total equal 75.

 

[KJV1611]

Its your opinion because you want to justify the number "70" in your OT For me much simpler explanation is that Stephen (like the rest of the first church) used LXX and therefore used the number 75.

Trofimus it's not my opinion, it's fact. It's in the text.

 

[trofimus]

That's the same passage we've been talking about - Genesis 46. I'm talking about other places in the bible where 9 children are mentioned. To me it looks like LXX changed Genesis 46 to the number to 9 to make the total equal 75.

Ah, I see.. no, I do not know.

BTW it does not make 75 with those 7 sons more, it would make 77.

 

[trofimus]

Trofimus it's not my opinion, it's fact. It's in the text.

You see it in the text. And you must involve some unknown oral tradition or some special God´s inspiration to get 75 for Stephen.

My "theory" is simplier, thats why I think its the true one

So, what was the perfect preserved text for the generation that died in 1610 in England?