Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry
Actually, there is no proof that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint - and historically, there is proof that the Septuagint only contained the Pentateuch before the time of Christ.
It is not that they "considered" the Septuagint - it is that they used it for some of their OT passages. It is a corrupt manuscript and part of the Critical Text.
Using corrupt manuscripts for its text is a pretty legitimate reason to reject it - with my other reasons already given, I choose to stay far away from it.
|
The NKJV is from the same text tradition as the KJV as I have previously cited. It is not a valid argument to say that the NKJV is based on a different text tradition than the KJV. Read the Preface of the KJV they used other translations as well.
“Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”
The intent of the NKJV committee was to use the same text tradition as the KJV. You may choose to ignore the facts and remain uninformed if you wish. I would just ask you to examine your motives for doing so. I hope you are being honest with yourself.