How do I create a Passage list that shows missing verses in the KJV vs. the Septuagint

The TC idea would likely be easiest ... put the LXX-English first, an MT second, and then page thru. Watch for the disappearance of the MT. Not fun.

My even less fun idea was do a find on 0a, 1a, 2a, ... 9a. Only have to look for the 'a's ... 'b's can't happen without an 'a'.  

Or just use a standard list, usually in an appendix.

Kudos!!

Maybe leave your steps here? This thread will be found many times by other strugglers!

There is a problem, at least to me, in using the words "missing text" or "additional text" in that it states that the other is Perfect.

Well, are you saying the Holy Ghost inspired witnesses of the Lord got it wrong?  And the usability of the hebrew was a late attestation (Jerome), and only because the latin went off the rails.

Smiling.

Heaven forbid!  Literally (hope that doesn't offend our Scottish friend)

Even just TODAY, I was lovingly looking at it in its PDF form ... and being embarrassingly latin-ignorant.  But who cares ... it's important (especially the notes) ... A-Company cheaped-out.

Heaven forbid!  Literally (hope that doesn't offend our Scottish friend)

Which just goes to show how one needs to be careful about assumptions and assigning relevance.

I am assuming you mean me.

I am assuming, you assume, that because I am a Church of Scotland minister I am both a Scot and resident in Scotland.

If so, you are misguided on both accounts. I minister to the Church of Scotland congregation in the town of Corby in Northamptonshire (England) and I am an Englishman that had the privilege of working in Scotland (Fire Service) for twenty odd years but who has move back to England to care for elderly parents.

By the way I am not offended by either the remarks nor the assumptions, but in this world of strange friendships am pleased to count you as a friend that does not mean another addition to the Christmas Card list. Nethertheless best wishes for this season and the next.

Well, you're right! But the problem is, as I (we?) read your comments, I try to include context ... where you're coming from. Sort of like Bible study. Unfortunately, the clues are meager, and errors major. I've read, the brain supplies clues in the absence of real ones.

Learning of your added fire experience, lets the brain go off the deepend (fire is our natural disaster). It's good to know more.

And good wishes to you, as well!

Everyone should try to go back to the original manuscripts as much as possible

Hence David Ames comment! the original manuscripts no longer exist. We have various ancient copies in various traditions. Is one manuscript MISSING something that was original? Has another manuscript ADDED something that was not original? Some of the principles in Textual Criticism (attempting to establish what was original) include a general preference for the shorter and/or more difficult reading. The very idea that a text "clears up the context" is a suggestion that a later scribe added for that purpose.

The facts are that the Greek manuscripts are 1,000 yrs older than the Massoretic manuscripts.   For the most part they are identical, but where the Massoretic has a confusing verse or passage (especially in Daniel), the Septuagint manuscripts have the missing words or verses that most definitely clear up the meaning.  Having both manuscripts is good because they verify that the passages are true and correct, and it makes discernment of the true meaning much easier.

If one only uses the Massoretic you are indeed "missing" the context in multiple versions.  It is also well known that the Massoretic has tried to eliminate the prophecies of Jesus Christ, hence why the KJV translators went with the Septuagint version many times, especially with Isaiah 7:14 "a virgin shall conceive" NOT "young woman" (check out the tanakh).

I think it would be a disservice to say they are not missing.  Each person has the ability to choose which manuscripts they would like to adhere, we don't have to protect them from this view.   They can conclude either way they choose.  Like I said, most verses are identical, but where they differ brings things to light that could not be found elsewhere. 

Agree, in many instances, the MT somehow went haywire and not clear why. Not sure of your Isaiah example. Qumran had an Isaiah scroll, a thousand years earlier than the MT. Plus, the NT prophesies often work off the LXX, not the hebrew. So then, ?? theologically.

And, I'd add, the guessing-game of which copy (and text-criticism 'rules' taught in acedemia) have not actually been proven (for obvious reasons). They're proposals that too often become 'of course'.

And my big belief ... a translation (eg LXX) is one of the best commentaries at a point in time (eg approx 150 bce).

I was referring to how the Septuagint translators said Jesus would be born of a "virgin" , not just a "young woman" like it says in the MT.

Just a thought on the terms "virgin" and "young woman".  If that "young woman" [and not married] was not also a "virgin" she was in trouble and most likely would not have been chosen the be the mother of Jesus.  But I personally go with the term "virgin" as it is clearer.  

Also, while we are playing with words, many "young woman" who were "virgins" on their wedding night have a baby within a year.

Also somewhere I read that the MT was not formalized until 90 or 150 ad. And that they chose all of the readings that were not in the LXX just to prove that the Christians, with their Greek texts, were not using the correct text.  [[And that they then convinced Jerome, around 400, that the Greek text was in error as it did not agree with their Hebrew text.]] 

Also somewhere I read that the MT was not formalized until 90 or 150 ad. And that they chose all of the readings that were not in the LXX just to prove that the Christians, with their Greek texts, were not using the correct text.  [[And that they then convinced Jerome, around 400, that the Greek text was in error as it did not agree with their Hebrew text.]] 

Let's hope somewhere you didn't read that. The 'M' in MT is approx 500 years later. And 'formalized' is in the absence of actual data.

David has confused the Masoretic Text with the Jewish canon of the Scriptures.