A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)

[@raymack8767]

The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT. Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial. Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. 1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims. 2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me. 8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS. 10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. ▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint. ▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT. ▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT. ▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5 Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew. Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT. There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.

[@NeuKrofta]

Jesus and the Apostles also quoted from the Septuagint

[@reecemesser]

Really love your reviews. Since watching your channel I am very much now interested in hardback bible's or with theological viewpoints to do with Christian history and faith. Thanks my friend

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Love those break downs at the beginning of your videos! I keep wondering about this edition in regards to the value of a translation of a translation. Thanks for the awesome review!

[@hassanmirza2392]

I really admire the Jewish and Christian scribes, writers and scholars who worked hard in the last three millennia to save this treasure of God-inspired books to be made available to us in 21st century. An amazing achievement, which most take for granted today.

[@hassanmirza2392]

@Jeff Hook Yes, those were Israelites, what we call Jews today are a remanent of the nation and tribes of Israel.

[@hassanmirza2392]

@Jeff Hook I think Talmudic Judaism emerged only after the destruction of the 2nd Temple? But Jews are a later off-shoot of the Israelite tribes. Austrian Jewish convert to Islam, Muhammad Asad (Leopold Weis) describes this in his remarkable translation of the Quran, 'The Message of the Quran'.

[@RGrantJones]

A knowledgeable viewer informed me that the NETS was corrected in 2009 and 2014. Those corrections are linked here: ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ . My review of the Lexham English Septuagint may be viewed here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnukaJullN-IgKc . There is a typo on the first details chart. The NETS is only 1.25 inches thick. I may have given the misimpression that Charles Thomson and Lancelot Brenton are the only other two people to have translated the Septuagint into English. Other translators include Nicholas King (whose translation I reviewed recently), Peter A. Papoutsis, Michael Asser, Lazarus Moore, and Gary F. Zeolla. However, I have not seen the work of the last four persons listed.

[@ivangenao9510]

You are missing the Apostolic Bible Polyglot translated by Charles Vanderpool in both book and digital formats and in digital format the Lexham English Septuagint translation.

[@RGrantJones]

@@ivangenao9510 - thank you! (I mention the Lexham English Septuagint in the video, but I wasn't aware of the digital version.)

[@TruthSeeker52342]

@@RGrantJones Can you do a video on the Cambridge and Oxford KJV? There are differences that I looked up but which one is the 1611 which the KJVO people use? That'd help me in my arguments against the crazy and hilarious KJVO folks.

[@RGrantJones]

@@TruthSeeker52342 - that's a complex topic. I don't know with certainty that the KJVO people are of one mind regarding which KJV text to use, but I think many of them prefer to use a "Pure Cambridge Edition". I could do a video that explains how the text has been revised over time. Is that what you have in mind?

[@TruthSeeker52342]

@@RGrantJones Yes, that would help. Unless your other subscribers wouldn't like it. All you need is Revelation 16,5 to refute their position. On top of that I am from Germany so it's not an issue for me but the KJVO movement still fascinates me. Haha

[@e.m.8094]

Wonderful, thorough review. I think I'll have to purchase this one.

[@ggesman7811]

I have been studying the list of 100 LXX vs MT variants you gave me. I really got hung up on Deuteronomy 32:43. Wow. I see why you broke it up into 4 parts. And if that's not bad enough, the Orthodox Study Bible leaves certain portions out. The OSB is a decent reader but there are definitely limitations for in-depth study. Anyway, after 2 weeks I am finally ready to go on to the next verse in your list. I am very much enjoying this 100 verse journey. Thanks again.

[@clouds-rb9xt]

The OSB is very much a hybrid text that got crammed together

[@rebeccadaugharty7288]

You've provided such a great critique. I really appreciate your detail. Could you provide your critique on the new Lexham English Septuagint which was published in late 2019?

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you, Rebecca! Yes, I intend to review the Lexham English Septuagint. My copy was originally scheduled for delivery in early December, but it was delayed. I'm told it should be here today. So expect to see a video review in a few weeks.

[@brianmoore581]

I bought this book nearly a year ago, mainly because it is in modern English, as opposed to King James style. It may not be a top quality book in terms of paper and printing, but it is certainly fine. To be honest, I have only used mine a few times when studying certain verses, and just skimmed through it out of curiosity. Your review has made me want to go back and read it in more depth. I have purchased a bit too many books over the past few months that I just don't have time to read them all. I guess I had better slow down for a while. Some of the books I have bought might be interesting prospects for you to review: The Hebrew Bible translated by Robert Alter; The New Testament translated by David Bentley Hart; Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes by E. Randolph Richard's and Brandon J. O'Brien; The Doors of the Sea (Where Was God in the Tsunami?) by David Bentley Hart; The Apostolic Fathers translated by Michael W. Holmes; The First Testament translated by John Goldingay; and my favorite the ESV 6 volume leather bound Bible. Just a few things that might be interesting to review.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the comment. I agree that this book is well made. I have premium Bibles in which the printing is of lower quality! Thanks also for the suggestions! I intend to review David Bentley Hart's New Testament translation at some point. (I make reference to it often in translation review videos.) Holmes' _The Apostolic Fathers_ made a cameo appearance in my review of the Didache Bible. I haven't heard of the others, but they sound worthwhile.

[@danwood4631]

Another superb review!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you!

[@sherrycampbell2203]

Which version of the Septuagint is your favorite? as far as original words, print size, paper & print quality? I truly want to purchase the best one! Thanks!

[@RGrantJones]

If you're interested in English only, this is the best I've seen. I use the hardback copy of Brenton often to consult the English and Greek, but I rarely read the English text in that copy for any length of time. The font is just too small for comfortable reading. The large, paperback copy of Brenton's English text (the copy from lulu.com I showed in this video) is printed well, but I doubt it will hold up with extensive use. (In addition to being a paperback, it has a glued spine.) So I recommend NETS at the moment. When the Lexham English Septuagint is published, I might have to change my answer.

[@sherrycampbell2203]

Thank you!

[@mariepositano4366]

@@RGrantJones l

[@mariepositano4366]

I appreciate all your work in giving us an erudite review for the various translations.

[@davidgeorge8942]

Mr. Jones, I really love your Bible reviews. Which Septuagint translation would you recommend for daily reading? Thanks.

[@XwynntopiaX]

Really excellent review. I didn’t know there was a Septuagint in English, so this is welcome news to me. And Oxford publishes this so I’m assuming the quality is very good. I would like to have one of these books!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for taking the time to comment!

[@skiddwister9143]

@@convert2islaam500 I believe that mis-aging Methuselah is in the Latin Vulgate. The Alexandrian Septuagint has the proper age. He dies 6 years prior to the flood versus 14 years afterward.

[@GaryM260]

I think it may be a nice addition if you could include an electronic edition review as well if a digital version is available for smart phones and Kindle. I have the Net version on my Iphone and like it very much. Anyway i really appreciate your work!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the comment! Perhaps one of these days I'll gain more computer savvy, but at the moment I'm not really set up to review electronic books.

[@laurelin3422]

What would you say is the best English version of Septuagint?

[@RGrantJones]

That’s a hard question to answer. I wish I could say the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS), since I like their overall approach. (They take the New Testament’s understanding of Old Testament texts seriously and render them accordingly). But the SAAS simply strays from the LXX toward the Hebrew too often. (SAAS is the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible.) I think the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is generally accurate, and I use it frequently. It also packs a great deal of useful, scholarly background information. The font is somewhat small, but larger than that in the standard edition of Brenton’s translation. Some people dislike the fact that NETS transliterates names from the Greek (Moyses instead of Moses), but that doesn’t bother me. The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is good also. I generally liked the second edition, though some of the language was too informal for my taste, and some of the renderings too loose. LES has the advantage of a relatively large, dark typeface and a wide margin in which corrections can be written. Unhappily, the text block is glued, as is that in the next translation. Brenton’s translation is still a very good choice. I disagree with some of his renderings, but I’ve found him to be generally accurate. This edition also includes the Greek text alongside the English, which makes it easy to check. My chief problem with it is the tiny font for the English text. Charles Thomson’s translation is also generally reliable. Unfortunately, the edition I’ve seen includes only 39 books. So, if I could have only one, I would probably chose NETS. But I make frequent use of SAAS, NETS, and Brenton.

[@billy5974]

Thank you for your reviews and your suggestion on Brenton's Septuagint . So i ordered one from LULU'S and i have started reading it. My question is Genesis Ch. 13 verse 6 seems to repeat the sentence twice. I am missing something, like there should have been a different sentence.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question! My copy of the LULU.com edition is at the bottom of a stack of books, but my Hendrickson is readily available. This is the way 13.6 reads in it: "And the land was not large enough for them to live together, because their possessions were great; and the land was not large enough for them to live together." That appears to be an accurate translation of the Greek text printed in the Hendrickson edition. NETS ends that verse with "and they could not live together", which translates the Greek in Rahlfs edition of the LXX.

[@RGrantJones]

By the way, I checked the Apostolic Bible Polyglot also. It agrees with NETS and Rahlfs. But Charles Thomson's translation reads rather like Brenton's.

[@billy5974]

Thank you for your quick reply, have a great day.

[@TruthSeeker52342]

I didn't know that there's another version besides the Rahlfs LXX. Differences between Göttingen and Rahlfs maybe? Love your channel

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks, Dan. Sss. That's a great idea. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of any of the portions of the Göttingen LXX that have been published to date. My impression has always been that Rahlfs relied too heavily on the Masoretic Text to influence his LXX textual choices.

[@TruthSeeker52342]

@@RGrantJones He did? I thought Rahlfs LXX was almost without Masoretic influences. I guess I need to watch your video on the Orthodox (Study) Bible. Maybe they have a "pure" Greek Septuagint...

[@TruthSeeker52342]

@@RGrantJones I'm just starting to get intersted in the Old Testament. But if it's more complicated than the "NA28 vs Textus Receptus vs MT/ByzText" issue then I don't know if I should invest any time at all. Since besides the LXX and MT there's also the dead sea scrolls. You highlighted the differnces pretty well in your ESV vs ASV video. In addition to that I only know Latin and Greek, so it's harder to correctly understand the Masoretic Text very well.

[@thechristocentriclife]

Will you be reviewing the third revision of the Brenton translation?

[@RGrantJones]

I'm not familiar with it. Who made the revision? With the translator/editor's name, I should be able to locate it through an internet search.

[@e.m.8094]

For someone that doesn't have a copy of the Septuagint yet, would you recommend this one or the Lexham version as a first purchase?

[@RGrantJones]

The NETS has very detailed, academic book introductions. I would choose the NETS if those are of interest to you. If you value readability, choose the Lexham edition. Thanks for the question!

[@e.m.8094]

@@RGrantJones Thank you for taking the time to respond! Blessings!

[@i8thebaconcheezburgr]

please have more on the words of the tranlation

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the suggestion. I probably should have discussed a few more passages.

[@FernandoSerna1654]

Do you prefer Brenton, NETS or Lexham?

[@colonyofcells]

I heard the oxford annotated septuagint parts are based on nkjv and brento. I heard the orthodox study bible OT is based on nkjv and brenton. Lexham english septuagint seems to be the only one translated from the greek. NETS seems to have started with the nrsv rather than the greek.

[@barryjtaft]

In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy made the request. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including prayers for the dead! Including praying to angels! Including purgatory! The Septuagint? Really?

[@ludwigkirchner08]

You are ignorant. The Jewish Encyclopedia is authoritative, not you, mister nobody. Everything after King Cyrus, who started a new state religion called Judea-ism, was done in Greek. The very word Jew / Judean and Judea-ism is Greek. Synagogue is Greek. Sanhedrin is Greek. Pharisee is a Greek word for Persian (foreigner). Sadducees aka Sons of Zadok is also Greek. The word Rabbi is not Hebrew either it's Persian/Babylonian. None of this was from Mosaism, the real religion of the blood Israelites. King Cyrus rebuilt Samaria with ALL foreigners from his Kingdom, and they weren't Hebrew speakers. Nobody was speaking Hebrew. There were none of your mythical Levites. Jesus stated and demonstrated this a myriad of times. Jesus - with a GREEK name (IESOUS), not long dead Hebrew - was reading a GREEK torah, my ignorant friend. All his apostles had GREEK names, and ALL his original followers were Hellenized Galileans. Only one single Jew aka Judean among them and his name demonstrates this. The NT quotes from the GREEK my ignorant friend. Go read the Judean aka Jewish Encyclopedia that explicitly states everything I wrote.

[@dustdriver115]

Does anyone know if it reads like the King James or like the NIV?

[@RGrantJones]

The NETS is more like the NIV than the KJV, in that it doesn't use archaic English. Brenton's Septuagint is more like the KJV.

[@dustdriver115]

@@RGrantJones thank you

[@ggesman7811]

Do you have the list of the 100 known variant verses you use to compare the degree of adherence to the MT and LXX? I'd love to have it for study.

[@RGrantJones]

Yes. Here they are: Gen 1.9, Gen 4.8, Gen 7.3, Gen 38.5, Gen 41.7, Gen 41.22, Gen 41.24, Gen 47.21, Gen 47.31, Ex 1.1, Dt 5.5, Dt 8.19, Dt 10.13, Dt 31.1, Dt 32.8, Dt 32.43a, Dt 32.43b, Dt 32.43c, Dt 32.43d, Dt 33.8, Dt 33.17, 1 Sm 2.1, 1 Sm 2.8-10, 1 Sm 2.10-11, 1 Sm 2.33, 1 Sm 6.3, 1 Sm 9.25, 1 Sm 10.1, 1 Sm 10.27-11.1, 1 Sm 11.1, 1 Sm 14.41, 1 Sm 17.4, 1 Sm 20.41, 1 Sm 23.14, 2 Sm 8.7, 2 Sm 12.16, 2 Sm 13.21, 2 Sm 15.8, 2 Sm 24.20, Ps 8.2, Ps 22.16, Ps 38.19, Ps 40.6, Ps 69.10, Ps 69.22-23, Ps 119.37, Ps 138.1, Ps 144.2, Ps 145.5, Ps 145.13, Pr 3.12, Pv 3.34, Pv 11.31, Is 6.10, Is 7.14, Is 10.22, Is 11.10, Is 14.4, Is 14.30, Is 19.18, Is 21.8, Is 23.2-3, Is 29.13, Is 33.8, Is 34.5, Is 37.25, Is 40.5, Is 40.13, Is 42.4, Is 49.12, Is 49.24, Is 51.19, Is 52.5b, Is 53.8, Is 53.9, Is 53.11, Is 59.20, Is 60.19, Is 61.1, Is 65.1, Jr 3.1, Jr 31.32, Dn 2.28, Dn 5.7, Dn 8.2, Dn 8.4, Jl 1.17, Am 5.26, Am 9.12, Hb 1.5, Hb 1.8, Hb 1.17, Hb 2.1, Hb 2.4, Hb 2.5, Hb 2.16, Zch 10.12, Zch 14.5a, Zch 14.5b, Mal 2.16. The NRSV and CSB include footnotes that describe many of the variants. The old Logos Study Bible does too.

[@ggesman7811]

Thank you. You are very generous. I am looking at this like a hungry man looks at a delicious aromatic dinner after a hard days work. I'm going to savor every verse. I really enjoy the insights I gain from the variants. Very cool thanks again. God bless you.

[@lthaduke2502]

Is there any LXX translation in english that capitalizes lord when the divine name is used like the translations of the MT do?

[@RGrantJones]

No, not to my knowledge. Thanks for the question!

[@voltrondefenderoftheuniver6222]

What is the most literal translation of the septuegent?

[@RGrantJones]

I haven't tried to score them, and there are several translations that I haven't seen, so I can't answer your question. My impression is that Brenton is more literal than NETS, which is more literal than Thomson. But Brenton strays from literal renderings from time to time.

[@someinteresting]

The one we make ourselves. I advise everyone to learn Greek and read the original, and if need be to consult a translation and commentary.

[@RGrantJones]

@Space Organism - Yes, they definitely do. NETS includes all four books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, 1 Esdras, Wisdom, and Sirach. The Lexham English Septuagint even includes a portion of 1 Enoch.

[@RGrantJones]

@Space Organism - Brenton's edition *does* have the Apocrypha. In terms of which is closest to the Greek, I haven't scored them, so my answer will be subjective. My sense is that Brenton's translation is probably a bit more literal than NETS or the Lexham English Septuagint.

[@mackzyanz5703]

Hello, how do you compare NETS with Lexham Septuagint?

[@RGrantJones]

I haven't done that yet. When the Lexham LXX is published - and I understand it's been delayed until January 2020 - I intend to review it, and I'll likely include some comparisons in the review. I understand that the Lexham LXX employs the traditional form of personal and place names. Some find NETS difficult to use because it transliterates those names. If you have a physical copy of NETS, you can compare it to the Lexham LXX, because the latter is available on biblegateway.com.

[@dcp2443]

Hi Grant, love your review. Could you perhaps use your influence to help encourage the editor to use traditional names such as Ruth instead of Routh and Maccabees instead of Makabbes (among others)? I’ve spoken with the editor, but I couldn’t convince him - his claim is that using the traditional names would void the “integrity” of the translation - his words, not mine. Perhaps more voices would encourage him. It’s such a nice translation, but the uncommon translation of names makes it somewhat challenging for the lay reader. Would also be nice if they corrected issues with the NRSV they’ve used as a base copy, such as translating the spirit of god as a “divine wind” in genesis. I think the areas where you’ve pointed out the LES as being superior are a great place to start!

[@knessetyshua]

Greetings Grant, I have a question concerning a Greek word, is there a way I could contact you?

[@RGrantJones]

Yes. You can find an email address for me under the "About" tab for this channel. Looking forward to your question. I doubt I can answer it, but perhaps one of my resources can.

[@knessetyshua]

@@RGrantJones I didn't see your email, perhaps you could give me a call

[@RGrantJones]

@@knessetyshua - Click on kzbin.info/door/6UAzFU6GZgix5ojuRZqNrgabout . Then click on "View Email Address." KZbin will check to make sure you aren't a robot, and you'll see my email address.

[@ggesman7811]

Mr Jones I have a question. How many Septuagint-based translated verses are in the KJV OT? And would you by chance have a list already made up?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, G Ges Man, but I'm afraid that's a subject I haven't researched.

[@jbone09]

How is Isaiah 7:14 translated in this? - Thank You

[@RGrantJones]

'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and you shall name him Emmanouel.'

[@gbantock]

The NETS is an elegant translation (reflecting the often lovely wording of the N.R.S.V.). It tends to be quite accurate, too, from what I can tell. However, there are some serious theological flaws reflecting some "liberal" and Jewish influence, once of those which annoys me the most being a tendency to downplay the Personal identity of the Holy Ghost, aligned with its wording that tries to undermine the Trinitarian basis that underwrites, however subtly, what the O.T. has to say about the Godhead. I like to consult the NETS, but in conjunction with a translation more Christian and theologically conservative, like the Orthodox Bible or Brenton.

[@anthonym4706]

Yeah, because trinitarianism isn't Biblical, its tradition.

[@FigRko]

Exactly I have never read in the Bible what I have been taught, What I use to teach others and now I don’t. Three in one and one in three. No where in the bible does it teach that. The only place I have heard that come from is men. The bible teaches us many things but that is not one, and it has nothing to do with the so called “secret things of God.” All glory to the most high, Yah!

[@PhoenoxProduction]

I have a question..I know that there is a myth which says that the 70 were locked in different cells and they worked seperately to make the translation. After that when they compared the different translations it was the same.. Is that true ? And if it is How is that possible ? How 70 people will make 70 translations and they will all be exactly the same at the end.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the question, PhoenoxProduction. I have no reason to believe that story is true.

[@ggesman7811]

Grant, in your list of 100 known variants between the LXX and MT, you list Gen 38:5. Can you show me the variant in that verse? It's not standing out to me.

[@RGrantJones]

It's whether he or she was at Chesib when she bore him. The LXX has she. (The RSV, NRSV, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Revised New Jerusalem Bible, and the NET Bible all follow the LXX at this point.) Thanks for the question! (By the way, they're not all disagreements between the LXX and the MT. Sometimes the MT itself is split, and sometimes the DSS differs. There may be a reading unique to the Samaritan Pentateuch in that list of verses.)

[@ggesman7811]

@@RGrantJones Ok. I was looking for a forest and overlooked the little tree. :-) I am enjoying this list. Thanks again.

[@ggesman7811]

@@RGrantJones Interesting comparisons. MT uses masculine pronoun LXX uses female pronoun SP uses passive voice to avoid gender. DSS is missing chapter 38. Peshitta uses she but adds a unique ending with, "...and after she bore him she stopped bearing." It makes me wonder if "Chezib" and "stopped bearing" are related. Chezib means "to falsify" and comes from "kazab" which primarily means lie, lier, deceiver, etc., But has a secondary meaning of fail, be found a, make a liar, lie, lying, be in vain. Fail and in-vain may indicate a relationship between Chezib and "stopped bearing." What are your thoughts?

[@ggesman7811]

?

[@knessetyshua]

How does Deuteronomy 23:2 read in that translation?

[@RGrantJones]

"One from a prostitute shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."

[@knessetyshua]

@@RGrantJones Thanks again, that's much appreciated.

[@johnnyhaigs243]

MAMZER!

[@ggesman7811]

Dr Jones, Do you have a public email or Messenger account for a private communication? I have a question.

[@RGrantJones]

Yes, G Ges Man. You can use the email address you'll find under the "About" tab at this channel.

[@ggesman7811]

@@RGrantJones I only see a link to your home page, no email address. Sorry.

[@RGrantJones]

@@ggesman7811 - perhaps what's shown at that tab depends on the type of device you're using. On my computer, I see two paragraphs of text under "Description" and then a section entitled "Details", which reads "For business inquiries: View email address". At any rate, since you can't see it, the email address is [e-mail] .

[@ggesman7811]

@@RGrantJones TY. That's probably it. I'm using my phone.

[@gbantock]

That problem (typical of so many Bibles translated with the offending word) with "New" in the title could have been avoided if the publishers had used something instead like "Fresh" or the like.

[@samisiddiqi5411]

Yo I got that Fresh English Translation of the Septuagint bro

[@abenuman850]

Can i get a pdg plsss

[@knessetyshua]

You said it is a sewn binding or not?

[@RGrantJones]

Yes, it's definitely sewn. Threads are visible in the gutter in the introduction to Genesis, between pages 2 and 3.

[@knessetyshua]

@@RGrantJones Thank you for the reply and the review.

[@777-Phil]

Much thanks! Initially, I was infatuated with Brenton's LXX KJV-ish style ... where KJV NT quotes were derived ... but sadly realized Brenton's LXX is NOT GOD'S WORD! Gen 1:1-3 demonstrates quirkiness unto my ears. You yourself preferred some words from the NETS. For me, the KJV still stands as GOD'S WORD, thus. "Divine wind" in the NETS seems pretty comical, too ... don't you think? But I respect both LXX non-bibles as usable for clarification purposes for me. Utmost blessings!

[@rightlydividing7607]

That thing is good to line the bird cage. Deuteronomy 8:3 + Matthew. 4:4 + Luke. 4:4 ________ 16:11 A.V King James Bible God preserved his perfect word with mathematical precision.

[@RGrantJones]

Interesting perspective. Thanks for commenting!