The Septuagint vs The Tanakh

Here I look at the definitions of the Septuagint and the Tanakh
The Septuagint is the alleged Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures as supported by the Roman Catholic Church including the Apocrypha
The Tanakh as taken from the first two letters of the Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim in the Hebrew Old Testament (the Law, the Prophets and the Writings or Psalms (Tehilim)).
Are they different and, if so, which one is correct?
Are there any issues with the Septuagint and how do the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts also impact on the New Testament?
By Unknown author - reproduced with permission: www.eliyah.com/lxx.html, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Reuvenk, CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/b..., via Wikimedia Commons
www.e-sword.net/
www.purebiblesearch.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
Textus Receptus Bibles
textusreceptusbibles.com/
@ScourbyYouBible
/ @scourbyyoubible

[@PhysicsTom2004]

To prefer the Septuagint Greek translation over the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim), the basis of the Old Testament translation of the King James Bible ONLY (not so for modern so-called "Bible" (per-)versions), you have to accept the following assumptions; 1. 72 = 70 Yes! LXX = 70 but 72 translators were used. Schoolboy mathematical error as LXXII = 72! 2. 6 translators were chosen from the 12 tribes (they were ALL permitted to handle the Scriptures, although technically only the Levites were allowed to) = 6 x 12 = 6 x (6 + 6) (Revelation 13:18 anyone?!) 3. The 72 translators worked separately over 72 days in Egypt to produce a word perfect translation with each other, something the very best translation committee from 1604 to 1611 (7 years) of the best 54 Linguists under King James couldn't do! 4. From the 3rd Century B.C. until the 1st Century A.D., the Jews predominantly spoke Greek loving the Gentiles for this "opportunity", and they "forgot" to speak Hebrew and Aramaic 5. The Jews used a Greek translation in their synagogues in preference to Hebrew (see point 4) 6. The Vaticanus MSS held by the Roman Catholic Church is utterly trustworthy especially as it is pretty much alone in evidencing the Septuagint 7. The Apocryphal books are accepted Scripture and support Romanist doctrines, e.g. "purgatory" 8. Jesus quoted from the "law, prophets and psalms" but He really meant to quote the different divisions of the Septuagint which are not the same

[@jakoboka]

You know that jeremiah returned to Egypt as well right?

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Yes absolutely, probably not to work with 71 other non Levites to translate the sacred Hebrew Scriptures into heathen Egyptian/Greek!

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

Did you know that the apocrypha was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[@PhysicsTom2004]

No I didn't so thanks for this; even more reason for me to not bother with them God has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation, have we then been using the wrong Bible for thousands of years and only now have one dug up from the Dead Sea hidden until now? Plus it is Hebrew tradition to bury corrupt manuscripts, those with a mistake in them, as they seem them as living texts, the word of God, so a burial ceremony is carried out If scripts are hidden/underground/lost for centuries, then I'm going with the text preserved for us in the King James Bible!

[@jsphfalcon]

03:22 This is one of those where you need to read it for yourself and becareful moments. 601 of the 631 says to not permanently dwell in Egypt. And Deut 17:16 is about the King sending people to buy horses in Egypt and going back in that way. After if you aren't to go back to Egypt, then is Gaza still Egypt's.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for this comment much appreciated!

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

I wonder what the date is of the Mitzvot or Torah or whatever you are reading? Maybe centuries later?

[@PhysicsTom2004]

The Mitzvot is a collection of the do's and don'ts of the Law, summarised in a helpful order No idea when it was written, but based on the biblical text

[@oldschoolgamer5932]

E'had is "one", A'hadim is the plural version, Yi'hed is (He) United verb

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for this Is this link any good in your opinion? www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm IMHO it explains quite well these differences, for me as a simple analogy to the Russian singular one (odin/odna/odno (m/f/n)) as compared with the plural one (odni) (e.g. one bunch of grapes) Also, the plurality of Elohim yet acting as a singular noun is interesting also!

[@aronmarc5575]

Jon🪞nnai👈oNe🌎WorD=GOD WorD🪞Drov= Tribe aGaiN👈 NuYok iS inner OrrLeeAnnS CounTi 🐎👈The END🅰️💤 orr your Soul MinD🎀BooTie 🙃 DiNaS'ehBreWWerdHe'SamiB gentileSSelitmap 🎨 Art He TypeSSeqiT En Glish babelledad tuA tunnelS☯️SlawNF 🌽hEar Uroc🌽MaY buch🌽booK👈 Ezekiel 36:26 “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Muders Herman Hart 👅 👈 staG deR VenisoN 🪶VaDeR 👈 GoT be All iNwardbrowN👁=Dunn=Finnish

[@oldschoolgamer5932]

@@PhysicsTom2004 The plurality of Elohim or it's equivalent Adonai (my masters), is to differentiate god from earthly "masters"

[@oldschoolgamer5932]

@@PhysicsTom2004 For the link, Yahid can be a more "modern" word, which didn't appear in the bible, but was made later using the Root of the word יחד

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@oldschoolgamer5932 Thanks for this clarification! The KJV does distinguish between Adonai, Elohim and Jehovah by capitalising them That is Lord God = Adonai Elohim LORD God = Jehovah Elohim Lord GOD = Adonai Jehovah LORD GOD = JAH JEHOVAH What are your thoughts?

[@tonysaborio1150]

Immaculate Conception is not the same as the Virgin Birth (and conception).

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for this correction!

[@studywithmefolks5809]

I was under the impression the septuagint was used at the time of Jesus. But I do know that both Jesus and Jeremiah went to Egypt. And the Deuteronomy 17:16 passage dealt with the king not making his people go back to Egypt (as shown in the verse before it) to multiply horses, not that anyone can't go to Egypt.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Good points thank you I was trying to emphasise the importance of 72 people allegedly taken from 12 tribes, not Levites, to go to Egypt on the request of the Egyptian ruler to translate the Hebrew Scriptures Again, there is no evidence for the Septuagint being in existence at the time of our Lord, He never quoted from it for a start! All we have is reference to it from a letter.... And the so-called "miracle" of 72 "translators" working separately over 72 days to produce a word for word exact translation Then this is "evidenced" by the Vaticanus MSS which has no history before the 1400s or so, coming from the ever truthful Romanist Church.. Give me the Hebrew Masoretic text anyday!

[@TJBowman-vr1co]

​@@PhysicsTom2004I have heard it said that the Hebrew masoretic and the Leningrad Codex were altered in order to discredit christ. Differences between the septuagint and the h.m. shouldn't automatically rule in favor of H.M. Especially when you have other texts to draw from, such as the Samaritan PENTATEUCH.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@TJBowman-vr1co Thanks for this comment That's an interesting take on altering texts to discredit our Lord Of course the Hebrew Masoretic text is the basis for the KJV One has to trust/believe/have faith in one Bible only as they all differ from each other!

[@pj_ytmt-123]

The jews had the custom of distributing the offerings after Sabbath services. St. Paul, who was an insider, likely knew about the corruption of the jewish priesthood (egs. Rm. 2:11, 2 Tim. 2:15*). * This verse also refers to Gen. 4:7 but _only_ in the Septuagint.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for your comments However, I have an issue with "likely knew", based on what evidence?! "Just the facts, ma'am".... You have quoted these verses to back up your argument; Romans 2:11 states "For there is no respect of persons with God." (KJV) (all are equal, none have preferential treatment) 2 Timothy 2:15 states "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (KJV) (imperative command to study the Bible by correctly dividing the audience to whom the Scriptures are talking) Not too sure how relevant these are when compared with the following text; Genesis 4:7, states "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (KJV from the Hebrew Masoretic text et. al.) - do well and be accepted, or sin is at the door? Genesis 4:7 from the Septuagint "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him." (LXX) - you have sinned if you did it correct but not divided it correctly? These statements are clearly not equal!

[@Honey1xyz]

WHILST TRANSLATING = WE HAVE TO PUT OURSELVES TO LIVE IN THAT ERA B.C.E. = THEREFORE EVERY YOUNG LADY IN THAT ERA WAS A VIRGIN BEFORE MARRIAGE = THAT WAS CUSTOMARY. BEING A VIRGIN WAS ALSO CUSTOMARY RIGHT INTO THE 1800s TOO = HENCE, VIRGINITY WAS MOST IMPORTANT IN THOSE DAYS 🕊🕊🕊

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for this comment Whilst I have previously worked as a translator, I don't have the courage or comparable ability as the KJV translators to touch the word of God! There are many warnings for those who do so deceifully! Yes a woman was a virgin before her marriage in those days, up through the engagement period, of up to a year, until the wedding For such a woman to be pregnant was utterly shameful of course

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

Also, we are speaking about God. Just as in the Old Testament where you were required to give of your first fruits for a sacrifice anything but a virgin would not be acceptable for the birth of the Son of God.

[@Honey1xyz]

@@JamesDavis-dn3wo ABSOLUTELY TRUE 🕊🕊🕊✝️✝️✝️

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@JamesDavis-dn3wo Absolutely and thanks for your comment!

[@MitzvosGolem1]

The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy only. Later Hellenistic apostates put together the Lxx Septuagint. No one has the original Septuagint. Origen put together the "Old testament" much later.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for this! Of course Origen was TOTALLY trustworthy.....NOT!

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@PhysicsTom2004 Origen used the hexapla method using Hebrew Aramaic Koine Greek to assemble the " old testament" very different than the Hebrew scripture. Rabbi Berel Wein history lessons Orthodox Scholar of Judaism has details on indepth history. תודה רבה שלום

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@MitzvosGolem1 Wow, thanks for this, much appreciated! I love the History of the Scriptures, really brings it to life! It's what we're to trust in and be judged by after all!

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@PhysicsTom2004 I worked in Nuclear research lab BNL . Familiar with physics. Ps read Einsteins own writing in his book " Out of my later Years ' Citadel press NJ Albert Einstein. Was a proud Jew and Zionist. Not an atheist...

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

If it does say they should not return to Egypt, is it saying they could never step foot in Egypt ever? Maybe it is saying that they could not go to Egypt to live? Either way there were many Jews living in Egypt already. Wasn't that the reason for the Septuagint? It was created for the Greek speaking Jews in the Diaspora especially in Egypt.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Yes but my humble take on it is would it have been acceptable for 72 Jews to leave Judah to go to Egypt for the express purpose of translating the Hebrew text into a language which they did not condone in a Synagogue? I'm sure that there were many Jews living in Egypt but the assumption is that they had forgotten how to speak Hebrew or were living by speaking Greek

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

@@PhysicsTom2004 I don't know about Jerusalem but in the rest of the Jewish diaspora they could no longer speak Hebrew. The Jewish world had been Hellenized. So when the Septuagint came along it was used in the Synagogues.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@JamesDavis-dn3wo where's the evidence that the Septuagint based on the Vaticanus MSS was used in a Jewish Synagogue, especially in Judah, Israel? With the diaspora, you're assuming also that the Jewish people failed to maintain Hebrew, again where's the evidence?

[@ignisfatuus07]

It's really strange, if not suspicious, to show such depreciation to a book well known and used by the evangelists of the Jesus era, even Jesus himself, and instead promote versions compiled and manipulated centuries later. OK, one can prefer the Masoretic versions, it's legit, but dont show such disrespect to the Septuagint which shaped Christianity. I don't think that Paul and the other apostles going to Rome and all over the world used the Masoretic texts, it's absurd.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Well known, what's your evidence? The Apocryphal books were never canon or mentioned by Jesus and His Apostles as evidence I'm calling out the Septuagint as this is a Romanist supported version evidenced only by the Vaticanus Your opinion on whether Paul and the other Apostles using it, is exactly that, your opinion! Personally, my opinion and emotions are irrelevant

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

You probably don't realize that the OT was given to the Jewish people. The OT was also called the Old Covenant and didn't apply to anyone but the Jews. Fast forward to Jesus and the NT which is also called the New Covenant. The Old Covenant no longer applies.

[@jaca2899]

So the ten commandments do not apply? Neither does the wisdom of the Proverbs? Nor the curse given to man at Eden? Nor the laws of Noah?

[@PhysicsTom2004]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16 to 17)

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@jaca2899 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Romans 13:9)

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

@@jaca2899 The Ten Commandments are part of the Natural Law which will always be in force.

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

@@jaca2899 Most if not all of the Ten Commandments are also listed in the New Testament.

[@josephtucciarone6878]

2 Thes 2:15 Jesus started the Catholic Church Mat 16:18-19. They are authorized to teach.

[@PhysicsTom2004]

Thanks for your comment I'm not seeing the evidence in these Scriptures for starting the Romanist Church, heavily based on pagan practices, Mary worship, purgatory, transubstantiation in the "Mass", etc. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Traditions taught by Paul NOT by Peter for a start! What about 2 Timothy 3:16 to 17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” ? Sorry but Scripture will always trump man made traditions. The Anglican Church, Romanist-lite, teaches an equivalence of the "4-legged stool" regarding Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. This is false! Sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone) Grace ALONE through Faith ALONE in Christ ALONE Secondly for Matthew 16:18 to 19 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Note that the Lord is speaking TO Peter (thou art) and then says "upon THIS rock". Jesus is THE ROCK. Pauls says “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” ( 1 Corinthians 10:4). This is a Kingdom passage, that is after the 7 years Tribulation period yet to come. Also 4 verses later from Matthew 16:19 Jesus calls Peter "Satan", not a good start for allegedly the first Pope! “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:23)

[@heb8465]

VIVA LA SANTA IGESIA CATOLICA !!!

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@heb8465 What could possibly be wrong with papal infallibility for example, as they set such a great example to follow as the "Vicar of Christ"?! And they didn't burn at the stake, murdering tens of millions of Bible believers, over a 1,000 year period....

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@duaneregister397 Romanists "We gave you the Bible" Romanists "The Bible is not the final authority"

[@PhysicsTom2004]

@@heb8465 Romanists "We gave you the Bible" Romanists "The Bible is not the final authority"