The Septuagint was corrupted: proof from Genesis 5

Might I suggest a book entitled
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
by D. A. Carson, G. K. Beale

It is a scholarly treatment of the origins of OT quotes in the NT. It asserts that about 80% of OT quotes can be traced back to the Septuagint.

You stated, "If a Bible, claiming to be Scripture, contains even one lie, it is not a faithful witness." The Bible contains a truthful record of lies. So, by your dogmatic logic, the KJV is not a faithful witness, because it contains one lie: the serpent's words to Eve. It contains many more lies, as spoken by false prophets, evil kings, Ananias and Sapphira, etc.

You really need to get some better arguments. It's amusingly easy to shred the ones that you use.

80% that seems unrealistic there was about four different versions floating around in that time. OT quotes were probably spoken to the people present, there was different languages with different versions. in the southern parts it was a different culture with their own textbooks like the northern parts. Jesus went with his family to southern judah the temple each year, there is Aramaic language in the New Testament and old Hebrew teachings and all sorts of things as well as different versions quoted from in my opinion.

here’s a site that speaks about the vast difference in and around Judah some places not mentioned is tyre and Sidon full blown Roman provinces.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...tween-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

Might I suggest a book entitled
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
by D. A. Carson, G. K. Beale
It is a scholarly treatment of the origins of OT quotes in the NT. It asserts that about 80% of OT quotes can be traced back to the Septuagint.

Here is a good summation to part of what you refer to; by M. Heiser

The Septuagint (and Other Translations) as Scripture
Both explanations for manuscript differences raise important considerations for how we look at our English Bibles today. The NT makes it clear that Jesus, the apostles, and the NT writers frequently used the LXX. Studies have determined that the NT, LXX and MT agree only about 20% of the time. Of the 80% where some disagreement is evident, the NT and MT agree less than 5% of the time. That means that the NT writers use the LXX most of the time when they quote the OT (Jobes and Silva 2000: 189-93).

The point to be drawn from this is not that the LXX is to be preferred over the MT as though it were more sacred or 'original.' If that were the case, one would have to wonder why the NT writers ever followed the MT. The reverse is true as well. The MT deserves no a priori sacred status either. The MT is the direct result of a Jewish effort to create a standardized Hebrew text from existing Hebrew textual traditions, a task that occurred ca. 100 AD, in part in response to Christian apologetic use of the LXX.

The real lesson that we learn from the transmission and use of the LXX is that the apostles-and Jesus himself-had no qualms about considering that translation the true Word of God. There is no evidence that Jesus or Paul or any other NT writer preferred a personal text over the texts available in synagogues, or that the hand-copied texts in synagogues had no variation. The fact that there were several non-identical Hebrew OT texts and Greek translations of those texts in circulation at the time generated no interest from Jesus and the apostles. What Providence had supplied and preserved was deemed completely sufficient. The early Church had the same attitude.

Most Christians in the first four centuries of the Church could read only Greek. The LXX was their complete Bible. Respected Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21.2-3) and Tertullian (Apology 18) had a very high view of the LXX as being the Word of God. Rather than worry about following the LXX or MT as the only reliable source of the Scriptures, we ought to follow their example.

That's a real shame you are amused exploiting semantics.
You know well enough that John146 was referring to falsehoods, errors, when they made the comment about the Bible containing lies.
You exploit the use of the word, lie, so as to mock their contention regarding falsehood in scripture.

Do you also emit a belly laugh when someone stutters?

Nehemiah, once again you have made the error of assuming that the KJV is the standard against which other texts are to be compared. According to the evidence presented, I could just as easily state that the KJV is corrupt, and you would have no defense without bringing in additional resources.

The KJV text is more familiar; that's all. I am certain that if you had grown up reading a translation of the LXX, that you would think the KJV were erroneous.

As it is, all you can say is that they are different, not which one is correct (if either).

Although I had not yet been reborn, in my youth and growing up, the two versions most used of the Word were the KJV and the RSV. Because of this they are my favorite versions, the KJV first alway.s


No version of the word is Perfectly translated, not a one, however the Holy Spirit gives life to any and all. If God chooses a person can find the truth in a Betty Crocker Coockbook, that is one of th eolder ones, lol. All love and blessing in Jesus, Yeshua...do not contentd over words or versions...there is no gain in that.

You stated, "If a Bible, claiming to be Scripture, contains even one lie, it is not a faithful witness." The Bible contains a truthful record of lies. So, by your dogmatic logic, the KJV is not a faithful witness, because it contains one lie: the serpent's words to Eve. It contains many more lies, as spoken by false prophets, evil kings, Ananias and Sapphira, etc.

You really need to get some better arguments. It's amusingly easy to shred the ones that you use.

Come on man. You’re smarter than that. You know exactly what I mean. For instance in 2 Samuel 21:19 where the new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath rather than David. That’s a lie in the new versions. Another is stating Jesus is God’s only son. The word begotten has to be there to make it true for God has many sons in Scripture.

He chose his words, and doubled down when I challenged him. I just pointed out the folly of his argument. It isn't a personal attack, except for those misguided souls whose identity is alloyed with their (usually bad) ideas.

Come on man. You’re smarter than that. You know exactly what I mean. For instance in 2 Samuel 21:19 where the new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath rather than David. That’s a lie in the new versions. Another is stating Jesus is God’s only son. The word begotten has to be there to make it true for God has many sons in Scripture.

And you just keep throwing barbs. Ask yourself when you resort to those type tactics,would anyone really want to learn what you know of the Bible when you act like you do, presuming the Bible has guided your growth, defending what you think you know?
That is all.

I'm not interested in debating the particular examples;

You have no answer other than the new versions are false witnesses.

You have no answer other than the new versions are false witnesses.