The so-called "errors" and "contradictions" in the Bible can all be reconciled. But since the Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, and the Hebrew scribes since the time of Moses were meticulous in copying the manuscripts very carefully, anyone claiming that the MT is erroneous has a hidden agenda. Proof of the faithfulness of the MT was found in the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, quoted from the Septuagint much more than they did from the Masoretic text.
Actually I did an in-depth analysis of this idea, and discovered that they "quoted" from the LXX about 10% of the time. Naturally some direct translations from the MT would match those from the LXX. So that is a common fallacy, given the fact that the LXX was a Greek translation being used by Hellenistic Jews outside Palestine, whereas the MT was being used within Palestine. Furthermore there is no question that the LXX was a corruption of the OT and this is spelled out by Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. So would Christ use a corrupted version of what He regarded as "the Holy Scriptures"?
Christ did quote from the Septuagint, and you just admitted yourself that the writers of the New Testament did as well, so why don't you try answering your own question?
I said the exact opposite. There was no need for a Greek OT within Hebrew speaking Palestine. And if you want facts go to the book I mentioned and see them for yourself.
Which is why the New Testament was written in Greek, right?
You yourself have recently claimed that the KJV has a translation error in it. I will locate your post if necessary. Do you have a hidden agenda?
There's something critical that you overlooked: Hebrew wasn't the language of the people by that period, and hadn't been since the Babylonian captivity.
Yes, they did. The OT was available in printed form and called Mikraot Gedolot (Great Scriptures) also called "the Great Rabbinic Bible", produced and edited by the Jewish scholar Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonyah and published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (1524-1525). It was based on the Leningrad Codex (1008-1009) which is the complete Hebrew Bible using the Masoretic Text (traditional text). What most people do not know is that the scribes called Masoretes were following the ancient Hebrew scribes in the way they handled their Scriptures. Every letter was counted. So the Isaiah scroll which Jesus read is represented in our Old Testament, and the Isaiah scroll which the Ethiopian was reading while traveling in his chariot was exactly the same (but there are slight variations given by Luke).Fascinating. Because the KJV translators followed the MT.
Here is John Gill's explanation but it is not entirely satisfactory: "it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, forty two, for twenty two..."
To me, John Gill's explanation is reasonable. A simple copyist's error. God is only responsible for the autographs, and despite their best intentions, people sometimes make simple mistakes.
You mean they followed the Textus Receptus which followed the revised 10th Century Latin Vulgate.Fascinating.Because the KJV translators followed the MT.
I agree; the wording is different, but is the message different? Do you know, by context, which is correct? No. Assuming either one is (and that the other is not) is silly. It is incumbent upon the reader to do their own homework.
Yeah, I figured, because it matches most of the inconsistencies you post on other topics.
