The LXX Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic Text

In assessment of the arguments presented, it is evident that he has made some mistakes. C1 : The date My opponent states : "My partner claims that "older is better", which I concede to, TO AN EXTENT. However, unfortunately for my partner, his date is a little off. The Masoretic tests are not from 1000CE; rather they are form 200BCE" My opponent is guilty of not reading incorrectly reading his source. The Wikipedia source he provided is the very same source that I had provided in round 1 to provide definitions of each text. Let us see what Wikipedia has to say concerning the age of the Masoretic Text : "The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews know as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE" The source clearly displays the correctness of the dates that I provided for the Masoretic Text. The source explicitly indicates the Masoretes as the primary source of the text, hence the MT was named after them by scholars and scribes. This begs the question as to why my opponent alleged that the MT dated to 200BCE. This date was clearly incorrect and contradicted by his own source. This paragraph from the source he provided tells us why he thought that the MT dates to 200BCE : "In modern times the Dead Seas Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200BCE but different from others. " It becomes clear now. My opponent had misread what the paragraph had said. The paragraph does not say the Masoretic Text is from 200BCE. Instead, it only mentions the extreme the extreme similarity to other ancient texts of the Tanakh that date back to 200BCE. The source makes no declaration to the ancient texts being of the Masoretic textual family but, instead simply says that the MT is similar to ancient hebrew manuscripts that belong to a textual family form the 2nd century BCE. C2 : The Language My opponent proceeds to say : "The LXX is just a translation of the Hebrew texts in Greek whereas the Masoretic texts are in hebrew. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Masoretic texts are closer to the Hebrew scriptures than the LXX. " This was the logic used by scholars for numerous centuries. However as stated earlier, this logic was exposed as false when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and examined by scholars. Frank Ross and many others realised that despite the Septuagint and Masoretic being nearly identical to the Dead Seas Scrolls; most of the time when the LXX and MT contradicted each other, the LXX agreed with the ancient Hebrew Dead Seas Scrolls. This was a shocker to the scholars and a debunking of the logic used by my opponent and many others as here were ancient Hebrew manuscripts that appeared to be closer to the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) rather than the Modern Hebrew version (the MT). This inspired huge confidence in the authority of the Septuagint ,as stated last round, as the Dead Sea Scrolls seem contain an ancient Hebrew ancestor of the Septuagint. C3 The Completion My opponent claimed that the Septuagint is just a copy of the Torah and not the whole Old Testament. He then also claimed that I conceded this. I will address his claims in two points : (1) The Septuagint just a copy of the Torah? The septuagint, in actual fact, is the whole Greek Old Testament. It is a greek version of the whole Tanakh as well as it contains the Deuterocanonical texts. It was a translation done for the Hellenistic Jews who were predominantly speaking Greek. (2) What did I really concede? My opponent incorrectly stated that I conceded to the Septuagint being only the greek translation of the Torah and not the whole Old Testament. What I actually conceded was that the 72 translators only translated the Torah into greek. However the rest of the OT was translated into greek by other scribe over the period 275BC-132BC. What I conceded was that the 72 translators did not translate the whole Septuagint. I conceded that they only translated the first five books (Torah) of the LXX. Here is a clear-cut definition of the Septuagint : "The Septuagint or simply LXX is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is referred to in critical works by the abbreviation [LXX] or G. It was originally the designation for the Koine Greek translation of the Pentateuch[Torah ], but came in time to refer to the Greek translation of the Old Testament adopted by Christians, incorpirating the translation of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered aporcyphal or deuterocanonical. " ---- see [1] C4 Corruption of in the LXX #The reference to F. F. Bruce The reference to F. F. Bruce makes no hint to corruption of the Septuagint but simply shows that towards the close of 1st century AD, the Jews lost favour with it. In simple, he says the Jews abandoned it while the christians embraced it. # Acts 7:14 Concerning Acts 7:14, it is a fact that no one knows what the correct number was as we do not have the original Tanakh. Scholars constantly attest to this. However the evidence does seem to suggest that the Septuagint was correct. Let us examine this in detail : Exactly how many went to Egypt in Jacob's time? Well, Stephen, in Acts 7:14, said 75. Even if Stephen was mistaken in speaking here, the Bible is still recording, without error, exactly what Stephen had said. However,one should not be hasty in immediately thinking that Stephen was wrong. In the Hebrew manuscripts of the MT, Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 both say 70men, including Jacob, Joseph and the two sons of Joseph. The Greek Septuagint in Deuteronomy 10:22 also says 70. However, Acts 7:14, the LXX in Genesis 46:27 and exodus 1:5 all say 75. The septuagint for Genesis 4/:27 says 75 because its says that Joseph had nine sons, not two. Genesis 46:20 in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript 4QExod(a) also says 75. So then who were these extra seven sons in the LXX and DSS? Genesis 20 in the Septuagint lists these seven "sons" (actually grandsons and great-grandsons) as so : ". .. And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, even Machir. And Machir begot Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; Sutalaam, and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam; Edom. " Notice that this passage only lists 3 grandsons and 2 great-grandsons, or five in total (not seven). However scholars point out that the text says that both Manasses and Sutalaam had sons (plural). The other two unmentioned sons that complete the 7 thus come form one of the two men or from both of them (1 form Sutalaam and 1 from Manasses). This is the solution that scholars have provided. Scholars, however, do admit that both numbers (75 and 70) could be correct considering the nature in which the numbers were summed up. My opponent incorrectly assumed that the Masoretic Text is correct when it records the number 70 however, in actual fact the ancient hebrew manuscripts (DSS) say exactly what the Septuagint says, 75! ---- see [2] In conclusion I still believe the Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic text due to its older age, affirmed textual integrity by the Dead Seas Scrolls and it's new found confidence in the realm of textual criticism by scholars. I await my opponents rebuttal. References : [1] The definition of Septuagint . http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] This source discusses the Acts 7:14 discrepency in great detail . http://www.biblequery.org... [3] This source discusses the reliability of the LXX . http://www.septuagint.net... [4] For information on the septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls . http://www.doxa.ws...