A History Of The Authorized Version

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Usually the Alexandrian translation of the Law of Moses combined with a regionally done copy of the Holy Writings and the Prophets, is called the Septuagint in a non-technical sense. BUT, there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did* exist in the pre-Christ world.

Yes, well, nobody said it did. What was said is that Christ and the NT authors quoted passages from the Septuagint, i.e. Greek translations of various parts of the Law and Prophets. Then you went off on a titanic conspiracy theory which posited back translations to account for verses that are more similar to the Greek translation/s than the Hebrew.

If there is no evidence that a pre-Christ LXX – a complete and standard version – existed, how else say it? I think it clear from all of the above that I am not denying at least a copy of the Pentateuch, and some other portions of the prophets did exist (we have reports of this), but the actual documents, or copies thereof, are no longer extant, and the Septuagint which does exist today is certainly not the same as whatever may have existed in the past.

Who said otherwise? The question is whether the NT authors quoted exclusively from the Hebrew, and that's not the case.


When you disparage “The Trail of Blood” (of which I had not heard before), it makes me wonder

Which is really typical of your methodology. You admit you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and then post a really, really long opinion.

(along with your evading the simple question about Catholics & their orthodoxy – apart from “technical ecclesiastical definitions”).

No evasion here. I'm trying to get you to not use personal language. If Catholics and Lutherans and Russian Orthodox hold to the Ecumenical Councils we call them lower case "o" orthodox. What's there to evade?

These “Fundies” you seem to disdain (and, yes, your patronizing “amusement...often tinged with contempt” – is quite evident) are our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we shall spend eternity in the Kingdom.
Yes, as are many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT. So?

Although you will not own it, they are the ones carrying the torch of loyalty to God’s preserved Word ever since our own mighty and beloved (for such he is) Warfield sought to douse it in the waters of rationalist doubt.

Sorry. I post on a Fundie site, and respect the people, but there's just no comparison when it comes to responsible scholarship between Fundies and those of the Reformed tradition. I'm perhaps chauvinistic, but they don't hold a candle to us.

You are saying that Jude quoted the apocryphal “Book of Enoch”?

Yes, he did. And no, it doesn't mean that the whole of that Book was inspired.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Tim,

I had not heard of “Trail of Blood” before, but after your mention I familiarized myself with it. It is standard fare regarding Baptist history, or at least Waldensian history, concerning which I have studied quite a bit. That’s a very important aspect of church history, as it pertains to forerunners of the Reformation. It is not always wise to make ungrounded assumptions, and then run with them.

The point of my posting as I do is, in part, to show one does not need fluency in the original languages to be informed about the history and quality of the Biblical texts, and to make sound choices thereby. Seeing as “experts” and “scholars” disagree, shows that fluency is not a determining factor in deciding on this issue of the texts. To be sure, fluency is a great gift which may be used to edify the church – but it is also a weapon of the devil in his seeking to destroy it.

My “really, really long opinions” – were they but that, would be worthless; if they are based on familiarity with the topics, and are supported by facts – or at least, in some instances, feasible hypotheses (for when we deal with the history of the Biblical texts there are large gaps where we have no substantial data) – they may be of worth. If I desire to use the materials of others – materials which are often overlooked as they are not in the mainstream of contemporary thinking – to bring forth information which is little known and highly pertinent to the topic, I think I do well.

The truth of the matter is, we are in an age of decline concerning the knowledge of the Biblical texts – not fluency in them, but of their history and quality – and this for at least the last hundred years. In the Reformation era the general state of understanding was quite different, and it is this that I seek to know and to share with others.

You have yet to prove the NT authors used other than the Hebrew to quote from, whereas I have shown – in the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/psalm-14-3-lxx-15502/ thread – that scholars (Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, Moo, for starts) – also hold to what you call the “conspiracy theory” of the NT-era LXX authors back-correcting their OT quotes from the NT.

I realize I subject myself to the ridicule of the “formally” educated (those that are of a certain bent regarding knowledge so obtained) by exposing my lack thereof. But as the Biblical writers themselves were often “unlearned and ignorant” men, who learned in the Lord’s school, I am not ashamed. And those who would seek to shame me, well, may the Savior deal with it, seeing as I am about His business – upholding the integrity of His word in this day when its integrity is impugned in so many quarters, even among the Reformed.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
CT,

I looked at Jones’ Which Version is the Bible?, and Ripped from the Bible, and they seem sound. In the former, looking at Romans 8:1, he avers that Calvinists do not like the AV reading as it seems to deny salvation by grace, but this is not so – though perhaps he has run across some of this ilk (IFBs are strong opponents of Calvinism). Apart from that his textual studies I believe are alright. He is an astute scholar. I have a hard copy of his large book on Bible chronology, but haven’t gone through that yet (I collect books on Bible chronology).

Why do you ask? Have you found anything amiss in him re textual or other matters (apart from the IFB distinctives)?

I asked because he has works have not been on your list of recommended works on the subject and it seemed that he was a competent scholar PhD and the like (I also have his work on biblical chronology.) I was wondering if there was something that you knew that made you not recommend his works on this subject. Now I know that this is not the case.

CT
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Concerning The Book of Enoch,

First of all, we do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

To assert dogmatically that Jude quoted from the book, and not an ancient saying, is unsound.

Pastor Bruce brought up in an another thread that Jude does quote Deuteronomy 33:2 in his 14th verse.

-------

Concerning having to know the original tongues, this from another post:

I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are fluent in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have their knowledge. (There are exceptions here on PB, where are some well-educated clergy.)

And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the corrupted Critical Text. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.

If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.

And what need have we of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? Cloud is right in this. Professors and “fathers” – fine as they may be at times – are not to supplant the authority of the Scriptures, and the Spirit of Christ who teaches us through them (1 John 2:20-27). Consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:

There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of The Pilgrim's Progress. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​

One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:

John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​

Tim, when it comes to “responsible scholarship” in these days we live in now, the IFBs – some of them – do indeed “hold a candle to us” in the area of textual studies. I refer to the scholarly and generally irenic among them. Centuries ago this was not so, but now it is. Of course this is one of the bones of contention between the TR and CT adherents; we are simply on different sides of the fence in this matter. To utterly ignore the positions of the post-Reformation theologians on the textual issues, and make it seem like this is but aberrant IFB ideology, is what we call “spin” – spinning a spell of disinformation. And I like to dispel such.

chauvinist: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender.

You indicated that “many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT” shall spend eternity with us in the Kingdom. I gather you are speaking of the Greek Orthodox (for the Russians hold to the Hebrew OT), and some other Orthodox communions. I live in the country where it is said the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” exists. I married into a Greek Orthodox family (my wife is Presbyterian now, having converted). On what basis do you assert that these folks, who consider Mary equal to – if not greater than – her Son, who insist that God gave the Greek Orthodox Church (to the exclusion of the Protestant “heretics”) to dispense His grace to those who submit to her dictates, status in the Kingdom of God? These who say that to be saved one must confess to a priest, take the communion of the Mass, partake of the other sacraments of the GOC, and follow the ways of this religion, these are “sound teachers” able to lead sinners to peace with God? To assert that salvation may be found in a sacramental system as opposed the simplicity of faith in the Gospel of Christ is serious error, to my thinking. To say that a “church” which does not stand before God justified by faith, which does not account the legal aspects of the atonement of Christ of great significance, preferring instead the mystical doctrines they associate with the Incarnation, to say that these folks have standing in the Kingdom – or “many” of them do – is to support false teaching. Which is not to say that some – some few – know the Lord (as with Catholics also). But “many”, as though the sacramental system were efficacious unto salvation? Paul pronounced a divine curse on such deviant gospels!

Steve
 
Last edited:

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
First of all, we do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."
Ah, I'd forgotten that Enoch was back translated. How convenient. Of course Christ used the word speak instead of wrote as well, so we could have left out that last sentence.


If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.

Yes, but we aren't talking about ministering, are we. We are talking about a specialist field.

And what need have we of scholars

and there follow eight inches of writing about Bunyan, who was a masterful teacher. But we're talking about specialist fields, not the qualifications for ministers.

You indicated that “many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT” shall spend eternity with us in the Kingdom. I gather you are speaking of the Greek Orthodox (for the Russians hold to the Hebrew OT), and some other Orthodox communions. I live in the country where it is said the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” exists. I married into a Greek Orthodox family (my wife is Presbyterian now, having converted). On what basis do you assert that these folks, who consider Mary equal to – if not greater than – her Son, who insist that God gave the Greek Orthodox Church (to the exclusion of the Protestant “heretics”) to dispense His grace to those who submit to her dictates, status in the Kingdom of God?

That's what you get from spending so much time reading ignorant Fundies rather than good, solid Reformed writers (like Rushdoony, Thomas, if you're following, and since you brought up his name. I personally started the ball rolling for his in house publishing, and was paid for that and for writing articles for Chalcedon when there were only 9 families up there. He was really big on the Ecumenical Councils, as you'd know if you had read much of his work). You start getting strange ideas about Salvation. The same Fundies that bloviate about Mary being co-redeemer with Christ usually believe the same thing, except that they substitute themselves as co-redeemer. So what? I wish it were different, and that all Fundies, Orthodox and Catholics would convert to conservative Presbyterianism. But "on what basis do I assert (many) of these folks......" will go to heaven? It's the word orthodox, lower case "o", coupled with a real belief that Christ is God and died for their sins.
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
However, your sarcasm in regards to the fundamental baptist beliefs of this scholar do not help you to persuade others

No, most Fundamentalist scholars do not share the opinions of the two brothers. It's a segment, like the Missionary Baptists that say there was a continuation of Apostolic Baptists that held pure to the faith all during the ages, and unlike those of us who's traditions came out of Rome, were never tainted by Rome, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans etc.. were tainted. It's the same type of logic and scholarship every time, and that includes reams of material when they reply to posts that don't have anything to do with the questions you ask them.

Are scholarly opinions acceptable as long as they are not fundamental, baptist or both?
They can be Fundamental as long as historic, Western standards of scholarship apply.

Could you elaborate on 'western standards of scholarship'?

Would you accept the scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, for example?
I do it all the time, as does everyone here. When I have a question about my honeybees I don't look to religion, I look to competence. Same with my mechanic. Everyone reading right now has had the same experiences. We'd all prefer 5 pointers doing difficult electrical work, but there are things more important.

I was not asking if you accept the scholarship of men who deny the innerancy of Scripture in regards to bees, or cars, or electricity. We are talking about textual criticism.

Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?

Of course I would. If Philo was a Jew, or any of a number of other non-Christians living back then wrote about the translations, or modern archaeologists, textual experts, etc.. and the subject was whether or not portions of Greek translations of the Scriptures were existent and quoted by NT authors why on earth not as long as they were expert? It's not like I would want to know how they interpreted them.

There is some value do deductive reason, based on Scriptural principles. Of course there is. But if that reasoning goes against majority church teaching, then one needs to look at the reason carefully.

For example if Elder A. says, as he did earlier on this thread
According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.

Then I would say
1. The Scripture Elder A. used doesn't speak to the issue, as so many other things he's written on this thread.
24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;
Not a word about copying or translating.

2. This is one of the most classic cases of Straw Man I've seen in a long time. One of several historical sources that speak of the Hebrew being translated into Greek claimed people from every tribe were involved, therefore we can't accept it as God's word. For one thing most of the historical sources don't make the claim that people from every tribe participated, and for another the prohibition Elder A. claims about who was allowed to translate is just something he made up.

3. What that would mean practically for us today is that we'd be under the same sort of restrictions today when it comes to translating, right?

So, I reject that particular allegation by Elder A. And that should serve as an example of what ISN'T an example of Western scholarship norms.

Regards
Tim
 
Last edited:

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
And again, that is not to say he isn't a much better Christian than I am or that he hasn't done ten times the work for the Kindom, or that he doesn't have anything of value to say.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?

Of course I would. If Philo was a Jew, or any of a number of other non-Christians living back then wrote about the translations, or modern archaeologists, textual experts, etc.. and the subject was whether or not portions of Greek translations of the Scriptures were existent and quoted by NT authors why on earth not as long as they were expert? It's not like I would want to know how they interpreted them.

Did Philo deny the inerrancy of Scripture?

Regardless, if you do not deny the textual scholarship of men based on their view of Biblical innerancy, why would you deny the textual scholarship of men based on their views of baptism and fundamentalism?

There is some value do deductive reason, based on Scriptural principles. Of course there is. But if that reasoning goes against majority church teaching, then one needs to look at the reason carefully.

Agreed. And no one here is claiming that you should blindly believe Mr. Rafalsky. But you have not proved that Mr. Rafalsky's 'reasoning goes against majority church teaching.' You have made claims (without citing any sources) that Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against '99% of scholars'. But you have not shown how Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against majority church teaching. Scholars are not the church. The Jesus Seminar is made up of scholars. Am I to blindly believe what the majority of them teach?

For example if Elder A. says, as he did earlier on this thread
According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.

Then I would say
1. The Scripture Elder A. used doesn't speak to the issue, as so many other things he's written on this thread.
24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;
Not a word about copying or translating.

2. This is one of the most classic cases of Straw Man I've seen in a long time. One of several historical sources that speak of the Hebrew being translated into Greek claimed people from every tribe were involved, therefore we can't accept it as God's word. For one thing most of the historical sources don't make the claim that people from every tribe participated, and for another the prohibition Elder A. claims about who was allowed to translate is just something he made up.

3. What that would mean practically for us today is that we'd be under the same sort of restrictions today when it comes to translating, right?

So, I reject that particular allegation by Elder A. And that should serve as an example of what ISN'T an example of Western scholarship norms.

Regards
Tim

This does not define 'western scholarship norms' or 'western standards of scholarship'. I googled it and it seems to be a popular phrase but cannot find a definition. BTW, who is Elder A? Do you mean Elder Rafalsky or some rhetorical figure?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Calvin on Jude 14, 15:

And Enoch also. I rather think that this prophecy was unwritten, than that it was taken from an apocryphal book; for it may have been delivered down by memory to posterity by the ancients.
Were any one to ask, that since similar sentences occur in many parts of Scripture, why did he not quote a testimony written by one of the prophets? the answer is obvious, that he wished to repeat from the oldest antiquity what the Spirit had pronounced respecting them: and this is what the words intimate; for he says expressly that he was the seventh from Adam, in order to commend the antiquity of the prophecy, because it existed in the world before the flood.

But I have said that this prophecy was known to the Jews by being reported; but if any one thinks otherwise, I will not contend with him, nor, indeed, respecting the epistle itself, whether it be that of Jude or of some other. In things doubtful, I only follow what seems probable.”​

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for intelligent, even if disagreeing, discussion!

A “specialist field”, the history of the texts? It ought to be, and increasingly is, a field being made open and clear to non-specialists. This is one good contribution to the field:

Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]

It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.

Teaching is ministering. It is serving, feeding the Lord’s sheep. And when a flood from the enemy comes in loaded with doubt and confusion concerning the Word of their Shepherd, it is appropriate food.

“Specialist fields”! How about the plain man and woman’s “Basic knowledge about the Bible, and how the Lord of hosts preserved His Word.” The Lord’s sheep are not under “the tyranny of experts” (Machen), dependent upon scholars.

“Ignorant Fundies”?

Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (1 Cor 8:1). “Though I have...all knowledge...and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled” (Hebrews 12:15).

I have said this before, you who are listening in, do not take this tack in your dealing with brothers, but adorn the Gospel you proclaim – be it concerning the Word, or how our Lord saves – with the qualities of His Spirit exemplified in your own. God forbid we should manifest the spirit of darkness cloaked with the words of truth.

Tim, you said,

“But ‘on what basis do I assert (many) of these folks......’ will go to heaven? It's the word orthodox, lower case ‘o’, coupled with a real belief that Christ is God and died for their sins.”​

I live among them, talk with them, listen to them – and have these past nigh six years, and it is not like that. Not in this land, neither among the majority of Roman Catholics, who trust not in the Person and work of the Son of God, but in a system, and in their compliance with that system. Yes, the system teaches “that Christ is God and died for their sins”, but the mere mental assent to that axiom is not saving. A “real belief” is being in heart-union with Jesus Christ and thus being born anew of His Spirit.

It is a grief to see “religious” folks weighed down with the burdens of the world, sin, and the devil, and have not the Comforter in their hearts to lift them into the presence of the Savior. Were I to believe your view, I would not seek to evangelize the lost Greek Orthodox, and they would perish in a Christless eternity unwarned. The multitude of the nation has cast off the “old faith” as fit only for the grandmothers and grandfathers (Yiayias and Papoos) and ignorant village folks. The children, multitudes of them, are growing up feral. Engaging in prostitution by husbands is widespread, families are bereft of the peace, wisdom and grace of the Gospel of Christ. Feminism is taking deep root in multitudes of women’s hearts. The emptiness of the GO faith – its absence of the living Word and presence of the Lord Jesus and His Father – has hardened the hearts of most of the people here. Others trust in their fasting, confession to priests, the Mass, and the rituals.

To such it is a cruel counsel you offer: leave them be, they have their “orthodoxy” small o.

The “straw man”

JB: “there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did exist in the pre-Christ world.”

TimV: “Yes, well, nobody said it did. What was said is that Christ and the NT authors quoted passages from the Septuagint, i.e. Greek translations of various parts of the Law and Prophets.”​

Tim, if whatever was quoted by Jesus and the NT authors – be it the Masoretic Hebrew or a faithful and accurate Greek translation (generic Septuagint) – does not exist today, then you cannot use the existing Septuagint (that which comes from Codex Vaticanus) as though it were the same version. It is commonly agreed by Septuagint scholars that the Vaticanus and Aleph version of the LXX came from Origen’s Hexapla. The LXX of Vaticanus is not an accurate text. You cannot say that this one is the one Jesus quoted. The fact is, we do not have the Septuagint of those days. If there was one, and it was true to the Hebrew, and He and the apostles used it, we will never know. To assert, as you have, that Matthew 13:14 and 15 were taken from the Septuagint – and you can only refer to the Septuagint of Vaticanus – because they are more similar than the Hebrew version, is far-fetched and without warrant. Your Septuagint may be very different than whatever Greek Isaiah may have existed in Christ’s day. H.B. Swete, one of the premier LXX scholars and editors, says of the Vaticanus Isaiah (the only one extant – along with Aleph and Alexandrinus), that it shows “obvious signs of incompetence” (Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 316), and is the most inferior book of the LXX, with Psalms but little better (Ibid, p. 315).

If you cannot know what a Septuagint in the times of Christ said in its text, then you cannot say that Christ quoted from it. Is that not a no-brainer?

---------

A last remark before I leave this thread – until next week at any rate, due to responsibilities I must not neglect: I do not hope to persuade you, Tim, of my view – especially in light of your contempt toward IFBs, whose scholarship I avail myself of (unless the Lord step in) – but I write, as I have said elsewhere, for those who seek understanding in this matter of the Bible versions, and the original languages underneath them. What I say is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, as a survey of the preferences here on PB will show (the ESV won the last poll, KJV came in second), but there are those who appreciate a survey of the scholarship supporting the primacy of the TR/AV.

I sincerely seek not to use sophistry

“sophistry, which my dictionary defines as ‘a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.’ ” –Paul Krugman OP ED NYT Jan 18, 08​

in my arguments or presentations. On occasion I have been shown to be wrong, and have had to amend my views. I try not to erect straw men, easily knocked down, as this is a futile method for promoting a position, for soon enough you will be discovered, and folks will lose interest in what you have to say. And if what we do we do unto the Lord Jesus, how should I stand before my Savior with a clean conscience if I am dishonest intellectually? For what I am about is seeking to bring light into that which God has said is the most precious thing to Him, as regards His Name:

...Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Ps 138:2​

And should I tread this holy ground with unclean hands and the heart of a fool? God forbid.

I am fairly immune to accusations and contempt from opponents, for I know the source of such, and besides, I know the wretchedness of my own heart – and the King knows also! –save for His sustaining grace. What can my opponents say in falsehood that I do not know in truth? It may even be that my adversaries have better hearts than I do! Note I do not say “enemies” – for no brother is my enemy.

For King and Kingdom.

Steve

P.S. I’ll have to put some photos in the Photo Forum, so y’all can see the lady that puts up with me, and my daughter & grandson.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
The AV Translators on the Septuagint:

The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Thanks much, I hadn't seen that before

and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new,

So if one were to say that the Septuagint wasn't as good a source as the Hebrew but NT authors sometimes quoted from it, then one would be in good company.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The AV Translators on the Septuagint:

The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek

For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.

If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origen cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origin cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.

What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.

Steve, I'd love to see a picture of your wife! My brother who is a senior law enforcement official (was in charge of Michael Jackson's security during his court case in Santa Barbara county!) was fortunate enough to marry a Greek girl, who is the best sister in law a man could hope to have.

Best
Tim
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
:judge: The conspiracy theory idea has been mentioned so many times now that I think everyone understands the point of the criticism. Something more substantial needs to be offered to rebut the thesis.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I'm sorry, and will try and modify the sarcasm.
Thanks
Tim
edit: I deleted a gratuitous sarcastic remark in my above post.
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
That is much appreciated. Is there any possibility of folk interacting with John Owen's approach to the subject as found in his commentary on Hebrews, vol. 1:106-117, and the view expressed by the editor on pp. 117-118?
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origin cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.

What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.

But because the LXX was revisised or 'improved' up to the time of Origen, and since there are no copies of the original, we still have no idea what it looked like at the time of Christ, right?

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.

I am not sure what you mean here.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.

Tim,

You were the one dogmatically asserting that the Apostle's quoted from what is called the "Septuagint," the only record of which we have is Origen's Hexapla and then Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. I first mentioned and then Elder Rafalsky provided ample evidence that many of these are in fact emendations in Origen's Hexapla performed around 250 AD. It is common knowledge that the Alexandrian Platonists operated fast and loose with Scripture engaging in some of the worst conjectural emendation to date.

Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."

Yet, a conspiracy to establish the Papacy does seem to historically exist as the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals testify. Our Protestant Father's received this knowledge and utilized it to advance the Reformation and defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against the Church Magisterium.

What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.

The Letter of Aristreas at this point was not known to be fraudulent. Further it was John Owen that argued for "back translations" in his disputes with Cappel and the school of Samuer on the denial of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowell points. This, of course, was taken up by Richard Simon following Romanist Isaac La Peyrere and the idea that the Old Testament was mostly mythology. Talk about "conspiracy theories," La Peyrere believed that there were pre-Adamic men. He was imprisoned for his beliefs and later recanted them before the Pope asserting that it was his Protestant upbringing that had polluted his thinking. Yet, he had a tremendous impact upon Biblical criticism as Woodbridge notes:

"La Peyreres influence was selective but immense. The principle founders of modern biblical criticism, Baruch Spinoza and Richard Simon, were both intellectual debtors to his studies." J Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, p 89

This is the foundation of the departure from the historic sacred criticism of the Reformation to the naturalistic scientific criticism that originates with Simon and follows him, in one unified chorus of denying the reliability of Scripture.

The record before us is that out of thousands of New Testament manuscripts no two agree exactly, yet it is asserted as a dogmatic truth that a record of the Greek Old Testament of 250 AD is a perfect record of a pre-Christian translation from which the Apostle's quoted.

You offer as proof nothing more than a post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament quotes the Apostolic New Testament. That doesn't prove anything, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the original autograph of the Greek Old Testament, or at least a pre-Christian copy, matches the post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament. Only then can you prove the Apostle's quoted it - other than that it is not proof, it's just your dogmatic assertion based upon your presuppositional interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation we believe is incorrect because it is presuppositionally incorrect.

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.

No it's not. We know in fact that this translation existed, we have detailed knowledge of it that is provable fact. There is no evidence of a Septuagint and that which exists that claims there was is a fraudulent document written probably in the time of Philo to lend support for his syncretism of Judaism with Platonic philosophy.

All we are saying is that there is no proof of a BC Septuagint, there is a legend of it in a fraudulent document that attempts to establish it as a historical fact. That evidence, which is all we have to know of it, necessarily disproves its existence. We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament, when that came about is unknown, and just because some of it matches the New Testament is not proof the Apostle's quoted it.

Rather, your dogma is more akin to some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists you deride that claim the King James Bible is inspired and Paul used it, when you assert that something of which the only evidence exists is post-Apostolic and the Apostle's used it.

It is more likely than not, and that is the only evidentiary presupposition we have, is that Alexandrian scribes brought the Greek Old Testament into line with the New Testament. We can clearly see this in the texts (e.g., Genesis 46:20-27 and Acts 7:14) and it's even more damning when we examine the Apocraphyl books and notice that they do the same thing - back translate the New Testament into the Apocrapha.

It was John Owen that pointed these things out 350 years ago and through which the authenticity of the Hebrew was upheld. It is the Protestant Confessional position that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is the authentic and legitimate tradition (WCF 1:8) and not the Greek Old Testament, we do after all reject the Apocrapha as being canonical. (see Romans 3:1-2) It was the Hebrews unto whom the oracles of God were committed, not the Alexandrian Greek scribes who added the Apocrapha to the Old Testament canon.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."

Look, friend. If I could get you to give a clear answer to a clear question, without Fundie style rhetorical logic, without going off onto other subjects, without anything but focusing in on answering the question, why do you say that the Letter of Aristreas is the only source for the "legend" of the Septuagint? If Philo lived literally during the same time as Christ and wrote that there was an annual celebration on the island that the Septuagint was translated to celebrate the making of the translation, then why isn't he a source?
 
Last edited:

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."

Look, friend. If I could get you to give a clear answer to a clear question, without Fundie style rhetorical logic, without going off onto other subjects, without anything but focusing in on answering the question, why do you say that the Letter of Aristreas is the only source for the "legend" of the Septuagint? If Philo lived literally during the same time as Christ and wrote that there was an annual celebration on the island that the Septuagint was translated to celebrate the making of the translation, then why isn't he a source?

Dear Tim,

"....there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

I've provided very detailed and clear answers. As I've stated several times, Hody dealt with all of this especially in his second work on the subject which included a reply to Isaac Vossius.

Philo is obviously quoting the Letter of Aristeas, or maybe vice versa. I pulled out my copy of The Works of Philo to refresh my memory and while his account of festivals is independent, so is his claim of inspiration of the translation whereby each group independently came up with the exact same translation... " every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language." Yonge, The Works of Philo - On the Life of Moses VII (37), p 494. Of course paragraph 40 tells you precisely what Philo is doing, creating a fake Mosaic "antiquity" for Platonic philosophy to support his syncretization. Again, I would point you to Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today, 2005"

Of course, what no one has brought up is cross collating Quitna, Sexta and Septima - the most obvious that very plainly demonstrates the post-Apostolic alterations, is Habakkuk 3:13 in Sexta: "Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of Jesus thy anointed One..."

When you depart from the authentic and legitimate tradition of the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts you are being set up for a fall. That is our confessional standard and that is what I'm sticking with.

And although you'll probably think this last statement is going off onto another subject, which is isn't, but when you then go back farther in the Alexandrian tradition you'll find that a great majority of scholars today agree that the Old Testament is actually Hebrew adaptations of Ugartic literature substituting Yahweh for Baal. And how do you argue with that, these scholars "know" and speak in absolutes that the Ugartic literature, which in many instances is an exact copy of the Psalms and other Old Testament books, represents a tradition that pre-dates the Exodus by a millienia.

If you accept their version then we are all fools, either that, or this process of translating the Old Testament into other languages has been going on for quite some time, with alteration to discredit it. When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, no one denies that their is a Greek Old Testament or even Ugaritic copies of the Psalms - it's the dates that are in question, and who copied from whom. I believe the Greek Old Testament represents a recension adapted to the New Testament and I believe the Phoenicians copied the Old Testament adapted to Baal worship.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Philo is obviously quoting the Letter of Aristeas, or maybe vice versa. I pulled out my copy of The Works of Philo to refresh my memory and while his account of festivals is independent,

So, if I have this straight, there is no question that Philo lived in Alexandria, that he was born 20 years before Christ and died about 20 years after Christ rose from the dead, and that he writes an independent account of an annual festival in the city in which he lives that celebrates the Septuagint and he may be the source for the Letter of Aristeas. But he is not a source for there being a Septuagint.

Is that right?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Matthew,

I'm looking at that section you mentioned in Owen's first volume on Hebrews, and will comment when finished.


Tim,

You said,

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.​

There have been some studies of what exactly changed; I will present some of the findings shortly. It certainly does not qualify as "revision" — spelling and minor changes.

I'll comment also on the Translators' Preface. It'll take me a little while to catch up!

Thanks, Tim. Yes, there are some winners among the Greeks. The Lord sure gave me one after His own heart.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Tim,

Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:

THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS (Summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999) Aristeas
Dr.James R. Davila - Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.

Note: The scholar who wrote this is not a King James Only man, and he accepts the widespread idea that there was some kind of Greek translation of the Old Testament. This makes his research all the more devastating to those who promote the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version. The LXX defenders like to use quotes from people like Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Epiphaneus, Eusebius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr who refer to the Letter of Aristeas as proof of this LXX version, and who themselves further embellished the accounts of this alleged Greek translation.​

Kinney's article:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In post #74 it was said,

“To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying [i.e., the changes in the LXX from a BC time to AD 200+ would render it a different version entirely –SMR].”


Concerning the differences between editions of the KJV

What immediately follows is from Dr. D.A. Waite, who wrote, among other things, Defending the King James Bible: [from: The Superiority of the King James Version]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1611 KJV AND THE PRESENT KJV

In the New King James Version they have the history of the King James Bible in the back. On page 1229 of my edition, the editors wrote:

"Over the years from 1611 to 1616, words and phrases in the King James Bible were changed, and printing errors were corrected.

"In 1629 the first edition of the Authorized Version, printed by the presses of Cambridge University, underwent a thorough and systematic revision of the text, the italics and the marginal references. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean Bois [he is the one who read the Hebrew Bible when he was five] two of the 1611 translators, participated in that revision. A still further revision, more thorough than the first, was carried out in the Cambridge edition of 1638. This carefully supervised revision covered `from the beginning of the volume to the end.'

"The first Bible to contain dates of biblical events in the margin was a three-volume edition in 1701 ... In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris, a Fellow of trinity College, Cambridge issued a major revision of the King James Bible; and seven years later the Oxford Revision, the work of Dr. Benjamin Blayney was released. ... Marginal notes were increased to almost 65,000, half of which were cross-references."

Basically, those were the revisions up to 1769. The question is, how great were those revisions? How much was the wording changed? That is why I compared the present day Old Scofield King James Version and read the original 1611 and looked not just at the spelling changes. Some say there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, and if you listened to them you would think we don't have anything like the original today. That would be a tremendous number of changes in my judgment. More confusion. They want an excuse to give us a "new" King James Version. That is why they give the history of the changes, to make us think this is JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. If there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, they are related, by and large, to spelling differences, NOT to changes in the meaning or sounds of words.

For instance, take John 9, the account of the man born blind. Now, the word "blind" in verse 1 is spelled "blinde." It's a change. But is "blind" any different from "blinde"? If that is a change you're talking about, it doesn't affect the ear. Now, in the second verse, "sin" is spelled "sinne." That is a change. Then the word "born" is spelled "borne." But the sound is the same. What I did, was to count only the changes that could be HEARD. And from Genesis to Revelation, did I get 30,000? No. Did I get 20,000? No. 1,000? No. I got 421 changes to the ear, that could be heard, out of the 791,328 words. Just 421. That is actually one change out of 1,880 words. As for those 421 changes to the ear--most of them minor, just changes in spelling.

There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for "burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for "lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible).​

I note that in his book he elsewhere provides the written research, concerning which I am curious, and will purchase it from his online bookstore at Bible for Today. It is listed as Item #OP1294

I also just pulled F.H.A. Scrivener’s book off the shelf, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), which has much information on this topic, and I will be looking through it to glean what facts I can, the which I will post.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Matthew,

Very interesting read, what Owen thought of the LXX being used for the OT quotes in Hebrews. It may very well be from him that the understanding the LXX was “back-corrected” from the NT originated (and not the IFBs or some supposed “conspiracy theorists”). It is a good example of a highly-trained scholar (both an accomplished Hebraist and Greek expert) refuting the “LXX-quoting NT authors” hypothesis. And he goes into great detail over each supposed instance. These seven volumes on Hebrews are a treasure. I have found no better exposition – for example – on the matter of Melchisedec in Hebrews 7 than his.

That the editor, William H. Goold, sought to contradict Owen (and not only on the LXX “back-corrections”, but on the authorship of the epistle as well) is not surprising seeing as the text-critical company he kept – which he called “the voice of modern criticism” – included such German (or German trained/influenced) rationalists as Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf (p. 117), Mill, Wetstein, and Davidson (p. 102). Sometimes good scholars posthumously fall into the hands of lesser men, who would use the grand vehicle of the former’s excellence to carry their own shabby baggage.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I hope this is not overload for some folks, but I want to give links to some articles on the Septuagint by Will Kinney from his KJV articles page. He's a good scholar (and a Calvinist -- probably Reformed Baptist doctrinally), if a little hard-hitting with some of his textual opponents.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html

And this one is a response of his to Dr. James Price's view of the KJV:

Sharper Iron Forums - A KJB response to KJV Onlyism:A New Sect

----------

I'd like to wind down this discussion, if no one minds -- I have so many things to take care of!

Steve
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I hope this is not overload for some folks, but I want to give links to some articles on the Septuagint by Will Kinney from his KJV articles page. He's a good scholar (and a Calvinist -- probably Reformed Baptist doctrinally), if a little hard-hitting with some of his textual opponents.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html

And this one is a response of his to Dr. James Price's view of the KJV:

Sharper Iron Forums - A KJB response to KJV Onlyism:A New Sect

----------

I'd like to wind down this discussion, if no one minds -- I have so many things to take care of!

Steve

Steve,

Any comments on the AV Translators Preface about the Septuagint that I posted earlier?
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi:

The Bible says:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Mt 24:35

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pt 1:24,25.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts, 2 Pt 1:19

The differences between the Critical Text and the Byzantine are so great that they produce two different Bibles. What scares me is the implicit argument of the CT that the Bible did not exist in its pure form until the mid to late 1800's. Such a supposition seems to contradict what Christ and His Apostles taught on the matter.

Any thoughts on this? Pro or Con?

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Hello Tim,

Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:

I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existance of a Septuagint or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top