The LXX OT uses the NT term "Christ" in Amos 4:13. This pretty much seals the deal and proves that the LXX was written AFTER the New Testament and it copied FROM the NT, rather than the other way around, as the scholars claim.
David Daniels has a good article exposing the LXX at: https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp
Well, Christ is Greek translation of Ha-Meshiakh.
ReplyDeleteSo, the LXX text here is equally an argument for this translation being pre-NT.
Except the Hebrew word there is "seach" and should not have been translated as Christ anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou mean that the Masoretic word is "seach".
ReplyDeleteBy "Hebrew", you would include the text behind LXX and the text behind Vulgate and the text behind Peschitta too.
What text behind the LXX? Some Hebrew text that nobody used and nobody has seen? So they can just write their own Bibles in any language, eh?
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew text used by Jews in Alexandria PREVIOUS to seventy of their translators making an identic translation into Greek.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Masoretic text that they did not use.
And author of Hebrews (St Paul or St Barnabas), as well as Josephus either knew LXX or Hebrew text version behind it or both.
Also, though it has been said that Dead Sea scrolls "agree with Masoretic", this is a truth with modification.
We have passages in Dead Sea scrolls agreeing with all three, and we have passages agreeing alternatively with LXX, Masoretic or Samaritan, where these differ.
Oh, post-Flood genealogies, St Luke also agrees with LXX rather than Masoretic, because of "the second Cainan" (Kain-am rather than Kenan, which was the name of the first one, the pre-Flood one).
The Hebrew text behind Vulgate seems to have been intermediate between that behind LXX and Masoretic.
So lost Hebrew "proto-LXX" gives rise to LXX through translation AND to "proto-Vulgate" by some anti-Christian distortions (substituting Seach for Messiach, by deletion of a Mem, I suppose in Amos would have been among these or the further ones), and by some contaminations with Samaritan (like age of patriarchs when giving birth to relevant son, before the Flood), then lost "proto-Vulgate" gives rise to Latin Vulgate through another holy translator, St Jerome AND to Masoretic, the earliest text for which is clearly younger than LXX quotes in NT and Church Fathers. And than LXX manuscripts in Grek, too.
If these texts had not been used and seen back in the times 300 BC for LXX or 400 AD for Vulgate, you have a hard time explaining where the Greek and Latin texts come from.
{{It is the Masoretic text that they did not use.}}
ReplyDeleteApparently you are substituting reality with your own version.
{{you have a hard time explaining where the Greek and Latin texts come from}}
From the Masoretic OT and TR NT. Same place the LXX got some of its readings.