Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

[MarysSon]

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Why would someone do such a evil thing, well they were trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism philosophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (in the modern versions) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. So its not a KJV issue, but a search for the true text of the Textus Receptus versus the Minority Text of the Alexandrian codices. As do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.

Why do you bother posting this nonsense with the weight of Scripture, linguistics and history against you?
The fact is that the Septuagint WAS used by Jesus and the NT writers - and it is easily provable by Scripture itself.

There are some TWO HUNDRED references, quotes and allusions to the Septuagint found on the pages of the New Testament. For example:
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Eph. 6:13-17 - the whole description of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

The Jews themselves didn't even jettison the Septuagint from their Canon until well AFTER the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Time for a history lesson . . .

AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the year 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence on the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. Of course, he turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon that existed at the time - and the canon closed. Then, a NEW Greek translation was established.

So - YOU adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet who declared a FALSE "christ".
Good job . . .

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No the KJV is not the only version of the Bible that can be used.

 

[utilyan]

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Why would someone do such a evil thing, well they were trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism philosophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (in the modern versions) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. So its not a KJV issue, but a search for the true text of the Textus Receptus versus the Minority Text of the Alexandrian codices. As do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.

LOL I KNOW THIS PANIC.

Right before a person realizes bibles are CATHOLIC. Thats why canon of scripture is a very Taboo subject.

If you want to fudge your faith keep researching this ........where do you get the canon of scripture.

Tell me what ancient text is acceptable please.......and who told you.

Your brilliant circular logic well this scripture can't be legit because it contains the "apocryphal" works. Just exactly who stated those works to be "apocryphal" LOL?


Give us a list of the proper works. KJV disqualified because new testament QUOTES Septuagint. They can tell straight up from the wording.

To attack the Septuagint is laughable, You are taking a shotgun to your own canon and pulling the trigger.

 

[utilyan]

Suppose your a fresh Christian you want to get to the bottom of this.......the TRUTH.
You can't trust anyone.
Suppose your an alien, ashiest, some guy outside the faith looking in.

You see these wierdos in wanabe ancient robes and jedis clothes. The walking around doing doing dumb rituals, They parade with this book raised over their head as they walk into their stain glass temples. chanting and singing bunch of weird dumb stuff.

But HOLD ON FOLKS even tho they are weird lets grab their HOLY BOOK. Pressume its sorta true, and tell them by THIER book why they are wrong.

That is ridiculous.

If you are starting fresh you start with ZERO canon of scripture. What happen is someone in your life is the authority who constructs your first bias for you. Grandma hands you your first a bible.

And if Grandma says ELLEN G WHITE is Legit.........you think its legit, after all Grandma was right about the bible how could she be wrong about Ellen G white.

But NOW your going down a rabbit hole buddy. You wana find out where it came from.....

What you are going to end up with is:

 

[Logos1560]

Your brilliant circular logic

Do your comments include Roman Catholic unsound circular reasoning that reasons in a circle that the Roman Catholic Church supposedly establishes the Latin Vulgate while the Latin translation supposedly establishes the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[utilyan]

Do your comments include Roman Catholic unsound circular reasoning that reasons in a circle that the Roman Catholic Church supposedly establishes the Latin Vulgate while the Latin translation supposedly establishes the Roman Catholic Church?

Changing the subject and switching the goal posts with a misrepresentation doesn't pull you out the quicksand. Show us that teaching.

You tell a guy his pants are down he tells you that your brown shoes don't match purple socks, that does nothing to fix the fact his pants are down.

How do you piece at all your canon of scripture and that each book is genuinely correct?

Like a guy cheating on his test he HAS TO look over to a Catholic desk next to him


Tell me a story about a guy seeking Jesus. Which denom does he start with or why, You got a particular set of books maybe 66 out of thousands picked out by particular people. Show me YOU picking them out, out of thousands of works.

Even YOU know you better change the subject, Because its suicide for your theology for the truth to come out.

.The reason you say your bible is OKAY is someone OKAY'd it for you. You never Combed thru thousands of books and pop out the pile and said.....okay guys these are GOOD HERE. Someone had to do it for you........who is that?

How are you SO SURE the book your reading is the genuine actual? Well mine matches uncle bubba's and he got his from a hotel doesn't count.

You are not allowed to ask these sorts of questions where you come from.

 

[Logos1560]

You are not allowed to ask these sorts of questions where you come from.

Really? You don't know me.

Questions do not establish or determine truth.

Questions can be invalid when they assume premises that are not proven to be true. Some can try to hide behind questions that attempt to misrepresent and distort what the Scriptures state and teach and what other believers believe.

 

[utilyan]

Really? You don't know me.

Questions do not establish or determine truth.

Questions can be invalid when they assume premises that are not proven to be true. Some can try to hide behind questions that attempt to misrepresent and distort what the Scriptures state and teach and what other believers believe.

Sure thing. So back to the subject. where did you get your scripture?

 

[MarysSon]

Do your comments include Roman Catholic unsound circular reasoning that reasons in a circle that the Roman Catholic Church supposedly establishes the Latin Vulgate while the Latin translation supposedly establishes the Roman Catholic Church?

And therein lies your folly, if that's what you actually believe . . .
The Catholic Church as around before there every WAS a New Testament Canon - let alone a different translation.

As for "Roman" Catholic Church - not sure what you're talking about. There is ONLY the "Catholic Church".
"Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to one of about twenty Liturgical Rites that include, the Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. NONE of them are "Roman" Catholics.

It is an exercise in ignorance to refer to "The Roman Catholic Church" . . .

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It is an exercise in ignorance to refer to "The Roman Catholic Church" . . .

Back in the day of dead tree Yellow Pages, one of the sections in the "Church" listings was Roman Catholic. Other rites were listed under their own sections.

 

[MarysSon]

Back in the day of dead tree Yellow Pages, one of the sections in the "Church" listings was Roman Catholic. Other rites were listed under their own sections.

Yes - you might see a "Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church" and a "St. Cecilia's Melkite Catholic Church".
They are BOTH Catholic and in full communion - but are simply different Liturgical Rites, which are largely cultural.

When people refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" - they are doing so from ignorance of the facts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I look at this situation as being something somewhat akin to European saying "Hundred years is a long time for an American and a hundred miles is a short distance."

 

[MarysSon]

I look at this situation as being something somewhat akin to European saying "Hundred years is a long time for an American and a hundred miles is a short distance."

Well, I see it as being more akin to the politically-correct blunder that lumps ALL people of Latin descent into one category (Latinos) - yet Mexicans are NOT Spaniards or Columbians or Chileans or Venezuelans, etc. - and vice versa.

A Coptic or Melkite or Maronite Catholic would be just as offended if you simply dispensed with their Liturgical Rite in the same manner just because you decided it was "okay".

 

[utilyan]

Canon of scripture is a very Taboo subject.

Best to retreat tail between legs. Best to pretend the truth about it all is not worth mentioning.

 

[robycop3]

To answer the OP's question-NO!

 

[Hobie]

Why do you bother posting this nonsense with the weight of Scripture, linguistics and history against you?
The fact is that the Septuagint WAS used by Jesus and the NT writers - and it is easily provable by Scripture itself.

There are some TWO HUNDRED references, quotes and allusions to the Septuagint found on the pages of the New Testament. For example:
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Eph. 6:13-17 - the whole description of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

The Jews themselves didn't even jettison the Septuagint from their Canon until well AFTER the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Time for a history lesson . . .

AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the year 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence on the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. Of course, he turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon that existed at the time - and the canon closed. Then, a NEW Greek translation was established.

So - YOU adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet who declared a FALSE "christ".
Good job . . .

The bigger the lie, the more tend to think there is some truth to it, but Christ or His disciples did not use a Septuagint as their daily Bible or quote from it in their discourse in the New Testament. The LXX or Septuagint version as you well know is claimed to be a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

The quotes of Jesus or Paul in new versions today may match readings in the Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus which are of the 5th century way past the time of Christ and clearly shown to be corrupted.

 

[Hobie]

Here is even more I came across...."the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.), Codex B is the 5th (fifth) column of Origin's Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5th (fifth) column the LXX. It is known more commonly as the Codex Vaticanus so called because it was found in the Vatican library and is of the Alexandrian text-type so appears to have been brought from Alexandria, but the text differed significantly from the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This fact is important as the Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version and has been picked up and many of the new versions being used today. Codex Vaticanus

The Westcott-Hort Greek Text gave great weight to the manuscripts of the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and the Codex Vaticanus was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Codex Sinaiticus (CodexAleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket in Sinai in 1844. From the evidence the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus appear to have been copied from the same source in the 4th Century.

Notice Codex Vaticanus is from the 4th century, many centuries after Christ not before and is all in the Greek language, Jesus did not speak Greek, Jesus spoke the language of Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew.
[bless and do not curse]Codex B - Its History


Dr. DiVietro says:

"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usual…The Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."

The Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite's Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima.

So we see the basis of the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, which some call the Greek Text of Origen

Peter Ruckman in the Christian's handbook of Manuscript Evidence has written on the false origin of the the Septuagint or LXX and his arguments can be summarized as follows:

The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication, and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C.

The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.

In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text."

PROBLEM TEXTS - In his masterful book Problem Texts (published by Pensecola Bible Institute Press, P.O. Box 7135, Pensecola, Florida 32504. USA) Peter S Ruckman Ph.D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two, "I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN'

Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include:

A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-36:10.

Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-20:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.

C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!

B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-45:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

Ruckman continues:
"Those interested in further damaging evidence will observe that every papyrus manuscript found with any part of the Old Testament in it was written after the resurrection, with the exception of one scrap containing less than six chapters of Deuteronomy on it.
The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

Now we have to note that many that did the changes seem to have been followers of Gnosticism which was centered in Alexandria, here is a good description.

Origenes Adamantius (or Origen for short) was the third in a line of heretics that corrupted the Word of God. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr (AD 100 -165), was a Gnostic (see note #1). "...Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels...called the Diatessaron....The Gospels were...notoriously corrupted by his hand..." (Which Bible, pg. 191) Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (AD 150-217), was Tatian's pupil. "Clement himself claimed the...title of Gnostic often." (Church Leaders In Primitive Times, pg. 286; cf. The Revision Revised, pg 336) Clement established a school there in Alexandria. "[He] expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy." (Which Bible, pg. 191) "Clement and Origen used concepts of Platonism and Pythagoreanism..." (Eerdmans' Handbook To The History Of Christianity, pg. 109) (see note #2) "All the writhing's of the outstanding heretical teachers were possessed by Clement, and he freely quoted from their corrupt manuscripts as if they were the words of Scripture." (Which Bible, pgs. 191-192) Origen was Clement's pupil and took over the apostate school that he started. Origen originated the Christ denying Arian heresy (see note #3) Origen also believed in the reexistence of the soul (i.e. reincarnation); baptismal regeneration; purgatory; etc.
TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS

So we find the Alexandrian Text has been corrupted with a Gnostic ideas and beliefs. Origen shared these as Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century church father, also is claimed to have found passages of a lost “secret” gospel of Mark, which he claims was at that time in the custody of the Church in Alexandria but kept secret and transmitted within the church only to a select group of Christians. Scholars agree on the Gnostic beliefs of Clement and the Excerpta ex Theodoto is a collection of notes made by Clement of Alexandria dealing mainly with (and quoting) the teachings of the Gnostic Theodotus. Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments: Excerpta ex Theodoto

 

[Hobie]

Here are some of Origen's Beliefs:

- Origen believed that man was divine.

- He believed in the pre-existence of souls

- He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.

- He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.

- He believed in baptismal regeneration.

- He believed in purgatory.

- He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.

- He believed Christ was created.

- He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).

- He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."

- He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.

- He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.

- He denied the physical resurrection of believers.

So Westcott and Hort, who we find have backgrounds in occultic/mystic dabblings favored the Alexandrian text because of the mystical or gnostic bent, which Origen used when working with the text. He interpreted scripture allegorically and developed certain doctrines with similarities to Neo-Pythagorean and Neo-Platonist thought. Origen wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. Thus we see why the newer biblical translations that come from the text corrupted have changes and omissions especially concerning the divinity of Christ......

 

[Hobie]

And therein lies your folly, if that's what you actually believe . . .
The Catholic Church as around before there every WAS a New Testament Canon - let alone a different translation.

As for "Roman" Catholic Church - not sure what you're talking about. There is ONLY the "Catholic Church".
"Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to one of about twenty Liturgical Rites that include, the Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. NONE of them are "Roman" Catholics.

It is an exercise in ignorance to refer to "The Roman Catholic Church" . . .

The pagan system of worship was around you mean, in the ancient empire of Rome and it tried to take over all the other areas and centers of Christianity and thats why you see the different names which were basicially ancient cults of pagan worship, thats basically what they are.

 

[robycop3]

The bigger the lie, the more tend to think there is some truth to it, but Christ or His disciples did not use a Septuagint as their daily Bible or quote from it in their discourse in the New Testament. The LXX or Septuagint version as you well know is claimed to be a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

The quotes of Jesus or Paul in new versions today may match readings in the Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus which are of the 5th century way past the time of Christ and clearly shown to be corrupted.

The KJVO myth is as big a pack of lies as the preterism myth, but, in the KJV, just compare Luke 4:16-21 to Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3, and to the Septuagint readings for those verses. Remember, in Luke, Jesus was READING ALOUD from a SYNAGOGUE copy of Isaiah, & HE called it "THIS SCRIPTURE", thus putting an official stamp upon what He'd just read. Thus, your rejection of the Septuagint was cancelled 2K years ago by JESUS HIMSELF.