Author
Septuagint VS Masoretic: Why? Go.

Septuagint VS Masoretic: Why? Go.

Discussion

16 comments

  1. Mat David says:

    F

  2. David Buyna says:

    I am no expert but believe both have to have creditable substance.

  3. Jeremy Brown says:

    Both are needed to be used

  4. Kayla Sanders Clyde says:

    Both 🙂 Masoretic is in the Hebrew with vowel markers that help us understand the original words better. The Septuagent because it’s what was quoted most often by Jesus and the Disciples in the New Testament.

  5. Jo Kothenbeutel says:

    Masoreites very strictly made sure they copied every Word of God.

    The Bible Version debate is greek new testament texts.

    The Masoreities did a great job copying it right.

    The same is not true about the greek minority texts of Vaticancus and Sina Texts.

  6. Jo Kothenbeutel says:

    Today versions dont treat the Bible how the masoreites treated it.

    They make changes to the Bible.
    Take out whole verses.

    KJV5 does not do it.

  7. Craig Fillmore says:

    I wonder if the Septuagint could be more reliable at least in some cases since its completion predates many of the masoretic manuscripts. The translators would have been using manuscripts that were unavailable later.

  8. Chloe Mizrahi says:

    What about the masoretic changing the captivity dates in Exodus 12:40 from 430 years in Chennen and Egypt into only Egypt? Or them saying young woman instead of virgin? Or changing ages of Shem’s descendants? These seem important.

  9. Zoey Granitz says:

    Whosa whatsa???? Please educate!!!!

  10. Myvanis Lombard says:

    The Masorites changed the number for Ps 15 from 10 and 5 – ‘yod’ and ‘he’ to 9 and 6 to avoid using the name of the Father in vain. I wonder how far they went in other areas in that regard…

  11. Craig Fillmore says:

    There are other interesting differences between the main traditions of OT texts. Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Masoretic all have different ages for the the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. This lends credence to the idea that the ages are symbolic numbers rather that actual ages.

  12. Treeswalking Nathan Chesher says:

    A scholar worth any salt frequently use both

  13. Michael Hile says:

    Masoretic isn’t bad, but it was written in the 7th century AD. Septuagint was 3rd century BC.

  14. Chloe Mizrahi says:

    “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
    Jeremiah 8:8
    Who was altering things and why?

  15. Lloyd Acree says:

    Do the dead sea scrolls prove the masoretic version? No.
    LXX / Septuagint is the early church’s old testament.

  16. […] Septuagint VS Masoretic: Why? Go. […]