Replies

So, finally you agree that there is nothing older then some 2nd century fragments of the Torah No that's what was found so far. But the very existence of Greek language Old Testament dating before Christ (actually the oldest are 3rd century BC) is something you cannot answered fully with your denials.

That is all we have now

So unless something shows up, you have no evidence today that any BC Septuagint (entire Old Testament) ever existed.

I am asking you agian, why would there be any, any, any translations of the Hebrew scriptures in Greek three centures before Christ?

Why wouldn't there be attempts to translate particular books into Greek for Jews who were outside of Israel?

Besides, DSS show Hebrew-language Septuagint verses as well. Obviously, the Palestinian version of the OT was not the only Hebrew version.

I am sure there were corrupt Hebrew versions, just like there is one today, with the Critical Hebrew text.

No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles Well, the Apostles make OT references that don't agree with the Hebrew bible. I suppose they must have been referring to some other scriptures.

No, God the author of scripture is free to quote it as He sees fit.

The New Testament writers did not have to be directly quoting the Old Testament.

For example the LXX has in Hab.2:4 the Just will live by my faith.

The MT has the just will live by his faith, while Paul says that the Just shall live by faith (Gal.3:11), clearly, not directly quoting from either one.

The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century) The copying may have been meticulous, but the Mishanh and Talmud interpretations and corrections of the Septuagint are a different story. The DSS evidence did not come with vowells, which were added later and which can change the whole meaning of the words.

The vowel points have not changed anything and the MT is the accurate represenation of God's OT.

As for the Talmud and Mishanah they have nothing to do with the correct text

There was no translation involved, so naturally, there would be less variation. There was also no satanic insertions of false Hebrew versions of the OT such as was the case with the Greek translations made by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Even some Church Fathers (Jerome) fell for them.

All of the three mentioned above were part of a heretical cult of gnostics (Ebionities).

Origen, the worse heretic of all finished the LXX translation and added the Apocrypha as well as being Canonical.

That was something that Jerome did not fall for.

Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are? Kahle's baseless claims have been proven wrong with the DSS discovery. There is nothing marginal about the Orthodox, no matter how much you may wish it to be. They are not a 16th century man-made innovation. That's for sure.

The Kahle theory has not been proven wrong, since no evidence of a LXX has (by your own admission) been found.

To disprove the thesis you need to actually prove the existance of an BC LXX, not just hope for one.

As for being a Christian, if your view is that depending on anything other faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ then you are depending on a dead (orthodox) religion to save you and not Christ.

And that comes from 60-90 AD in the New Testament Epistles.