Is Ussher's Bible Chronology correct?

[Logos1560]

One additional evidence of an apparent revision or redaction of the Hebrew text as indicated by Christian Ginsburg and of the existence of a pre-A.D. 100 old Greek Septuagint would be Aquila’s Greek Old Testament translation made around A. D. 126. S. Douglas Woodward claimed: “That the rabbis felt it necessary to see a new Greek Bible produced to change what the LXX recorded proves that the LXX was real and existed beforehand” (Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 231).

In the introduction to his English translation of the Septuagint, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton wrote: “The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century [A. D.] was that of AQUILA” (p. v). Lancelot Brenton noted: “His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint; his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus” (Ibid.).

Daniel Gruber asserted: “To some extent, he [Akiba] set the canon and most likely ‘standarized’ the Hebrew text itself. He authorized a new Greek translation and a new Aramaic Targum of his own text. In whatever language a Jew read or heard the Scriptures, he would be hearing from Akiba” (Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah, p. 112).

In his book about Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, Rabbi Reuven Hammer wrote: “Akiva was also concerned to see to it that translations of the Bible reflected the interpretations of the Sages, thus further ‘rabbinizing’ or ‘Judaizing’ the text. His disciple Aquila, a convert to Judaism, translated the Bible into Greek in a way that corrected many of the passages in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation that was in general use at the time), passages that might have led to Christian conclusions or that represented alternative readings to the masoretic (authoritative Hebrew) text. For Christians the Septuagint had become the standard text, even when it differed from the Hebrew text. Aquila’s new Greek translation of the entire Bible instead reflected Akiva’s interpretations” (Akiva, p. 83).

 

[Logos1560]

The Masoretic text (MT) is the basis for most English translations of the Old Testament today and is widely regarded as the best-preserved text of the Hebrew Bible.

Yet, the oldest extant manuscript is dated to around ad 900, and we cannot simply assume that its genealogical figures arethe most accurate without further investigation.

In 1741, Charles Hayes asked: “Can any man believe, that the version of the Septuagint which he [Josephus] made use of, differed from that Hebrew copy, which he had, by the favour of Titus, out of the Temple?” (Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, pp. 88-89). Charles Hayes claimed: “We are sure that he [Josephus] had before his eyes, not only the version of the Septuagint, but likewise that most authentic Hebrew copy of the sacred books, which was found in the Temple, when it was destroyed by Titus” (p. 88).

Other sources also affirm that Flavius Josephus was given access to copies of the old Hebrew manuscripts previously kept at the Jews’ Temple in Jerusalem. Christian Ginsburg asserted: “Josephus tells us that Titus presented him with Codices [scrolls] of the Sacred Scriptures from the spoils of the Temple” (Introduction, pp. 409-410). Adolf Neubauer also claimed that “Titus, as Josephus mentions, presented him with many other codices [scrolls] captured by him” (Driver, Essay in Biblical and Patristic Criticism, Vol III, p. 20). Adolf Neubauer referred to a “precious copy of the Law” taken from the Temple in Jerusalem to the imperial palace in Rome, which was later “handed over to a synagogue after 220 A. D.” (Ibid.). The reference to codices would likely have to refer to scroll manuscript copies of the Jews’ sacred books.

Flavius Josephus himself maintained that his history is “taken out of our [Jews’] sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue” (Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 607), and he referred to the Jewish canon of “twenty-two books” (p. 609). Josephus thus affirms his direct access to old MSS copies of the Jews’ sacred books, which would be much older than any Masoretic Text copies.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Josephus thus affirms his direct access to old MSS copies of the Jews’ sacred books, which would be much older than any Masoretic Text copies.

"What Is the Masoretic Text?​

"The phrase “Masoretic Text” can be used in two related senses."

Generally speaking, they are going to say first, the Masoretic Text's tradition goes on back and entertaining the presumption that from the earliest copies from the Original Autographs there could be a gap somewhere in the succession from them to the Masoretic Text would be up to the one that thought a thing like that could even be possible in any way, to prove it.

"First, it refers to the conservative Hebrew textual tradition that became dominant in Judaism after the first century C.E.—a tradition whose consonantal form is witnessed in medieval manuscripts such as the Aleppo Codex and Codex Leningradensis and whose general character is foreshadowed in the proto-Masoretic manuscripts from the Dead Sea region.

Specifically, there second point talks about the Masoretic Text proper, apart from it's tradition.

"Second, more narrowly, it refers to that same consonantal text as transmitted with Tiberian vowel points, accents, and Masoretic notes by the scholar–scribes called Masoretes. In this stricter sense, “Masoretic Text” includes not just the letters but also the vocalization, cantillation, and marginal apparatus that these scribes attached to the inherited text.

"In both senses, the MT is not an invention of the Middle Ages. It is the mature expression of a textual line whose roots extend back many centuries earlier.

"The Masoretes did not decide which books belonged in Scripture; they did not rewrite chapters according to their own theology. Instead, they received a canon and a consonantal text already regarded as fixed and devoted themselves to copying and safeguarding it with unparalleled rigor."

In 1741, Charles Hayes asked: “Can any man believe, that the version of the Septuagint which he [Josephus] made use of, differed from that Hebrew copy, which he had, by the favour of Titus, out of the Temple?” (Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, pp. 88-89).

"The Septuagint, or LXX.

"As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other.

"Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*******d New Testaments come from!"

1 See "What is the Septuagint?"

Charles Hayes claimed: “We are sure that he [Josephus] had before his eyes, not only the version of the Septuagint, but likewise that most authentic Hebrew copy of the sacred books, which was found in the Temple, when it was destroyed by Titus” (p. 88).

Are you sure?

And if so, so what?

Adam and Eve spoke with a Texas drawl, we know that for sure.

Adolf Neubauer referred to a “precious copy of the Law” taken from the Temple in Jerusalem to the imperial palace in Rome, which was later “handed over to a synagogue after 220 A. D.” (Ibid.).

A lot of activity seems to hover around Rome with some of these manuscripts, for some reason. They have some words and phases that are sometimes nicely expressed enough to be included in an English translation, but you want to walk slow and drink a lot of water.

The reference to codices would likely have to refer to scroll manuscript copies of the Jews’ sacred books.

"likely"

Josephus thus affirms his direct access to old MSS copies of the Jews’ sacred books, which would be much older than any Masoretic Text copies.

"thus affirms"

They went from "likely" to "thus affirms" awfully quick, for my taste.

Didn't any of these guys ever take a math class?

And there's no reason to assume that some older manuscript is more trustworthy or accurate that one that may not be the same age or older.

Like Dean John William Burgon said about the (Roman) Vaticanus and (Roman) Sianaticus, when they resurfaced after hundreds of years (maybe) in the Occult Underground:

"Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

"Had b (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen in decadence and disappeared from sight."

"In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away."

 

[JD731]

1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

I wonder why Paul told Timothy this. Surely they would not have been arguing genealogies back then?!?

The reason is because Timothy was in the church at Ephesus in the province of Asia and most of the members of that church and all the churches in that whole region were of the dispersed of the 10 tribe nation of Israel who were cut off by the Assyrians in 722 BC.
I am told that genealogical records were kept in the temple at Jerusalem for all of Israel but after the division into two nations, Israel's records were probably kept in Samaria and were lost in the siege. When God said "not my people" by the prophet Hosea in chapter 1 those records were not important. Because of that they could not be sure what tribe they were from. In the tribulation when God chooses 144,000 preachers, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes to preach the gospel of the kingdom is at hand to the whole world, you can be sure God has kept a record.

Ep 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time (the time God considered them gentiles) ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (you should compare this with Hosea 1 and Ro 9 and 1 Peter 1:1-3.)
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

It is likely that only those of Juda and Benjamin could prove their genealogy by records. After all, Paul was sure of his in Romans when he said this;

Ro 11: I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

The idea, I think, was that Judah would be saved as a nation while Jesus went to the Father after his resurrection to receive his kingdom and return, while those of the ten tribes would be saved as gentiles, one by one. This is the reason for the frustration of Paul, and by extension God himself, for the interference of the Judaizers, especially in Galatia, when they frustrated the gospel with the admixture of the law of Moses. A mixture of law and grace will not save anyone and it hindered many from being saved.

Lk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

You might remember that Paul at one time came to Jerusalem to the temple because of a vow with Timothy and caused an uproar because the Jews accused him of taking a gentile past the limits of gentile access. Timothy had a Jewish mother but a gentile father. Genealogies will be important in the next age, but not during the church age.

Sorry about the interruption but this is so interesting I had to help with the question.

 

[Logos1560]

"The Septuagint, or LXX.

"As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other.

"Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*******d New Testaments come from!"

The Greek Septuagint is not a fable. The term Septuagint has been used with different meanings. It is first used for a B. C. Greek translation of the Pentateuch. The term was later applied to Greek translation of the entire Old Testament. Before the birth of Christ and even up to A. D. 100, there were no codices with a complete text of the Old Testament whether in Hebrew or whether translated into Greek. The books of the Old Testament were copied on scrolls.

Parts and perhaps the entire Old Testament had been translated into Greek before the birth of Christ. Edmon Gallagher wrote: “Earlier authors cite the Greek Pentateuch and sometimes other books, authors such as Demetrius the Chronographer in the late third century BCE, Artapanus in the first half of the second century BCE, Eupolemus in the mid-second century BCE, and Aristeas the Exegete perhaps in the second century BCE” (Translation, pp. 38-39). Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) wrote: “There is, moreover, positive evidence that the Alexandrian version of Genesis at least was in existence considerably before the beginning of Philometor’s reign. It was used by the Hellenist Demetrius” (Introduction, p. 17). Timothy Michael Law wrote: “The Septuagint versions of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were translated no later than the first half of the second century BCE, confirmed by their use already in the second half of the second century by the Jewish Hellenistic historian Eupolemus” (When God Spoke Greek, p. 49). Emanuel Tov wrote: “Since the Prophets and several of the books of the Hagiographa were known in their Greek version to the grandson of Ben Sira at the end of the second century BCE, we may infer that most of the books of the Prophets and Hagiographa were translated in the beginning of that century or somewhat earlier. There is only limited explicit evidence concerning individual books: Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the second century BCE, and Job is quoted by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the first century BCE” (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 137). Some parts of B. C. scrolls translated into Greek were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hellenistic Jews were using and reading a Greek Old Testament in the form of scrolls in the days of the making of the New Testament.

One additional evidence of an apparent revision or redaction of the Hebrew text as indicated by Christian Ginsburg and of the existence of a pre-A.D. 100 old Greek Septuagint would be Aquila’s Greek Old Testament translation made around A. D. 125 to 140. S. Douglas Woodward claimed: “That the rabbis felt it necessary to see a new Greek Bible produced to change what the LXX recorded proves that the LXX was real and existed beforehand” (Septuagint, p. 231).
The Jewish Encyclopedia maintained that Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph wished “to emancipate the Jews of the Dispersion from the domination of the Septuagint” (Vol. I, p. 306). In the introduction to his English translation of the Septuagint, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton wrote: “The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century [A. D.] was that of AQUILA” (p. v). Lancelot Brenton noted: “His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint; his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus” (Ibid.). K. H. Jobes and Moises Silva wrote: “Aquila eventually undertook a new Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that (a) was based on the recently standardized Hebrew text; (b) sought to correct perceived deficiencies in the LXX, including those that affected Jewish-Christian disputes; and (c) adopted a very literalistic approach that possibly reflected certain rabbinic methods of interpretation” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 408).

Another evidence that there had to be an Old Testament translated into Greek is the fact that the Old Latin Bible's Old Testament was translated from the Greek Septuagint.


In referring to the old Greek Septuagint, I am not referring to post 300 A. D. codices such Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. I am referring to a Greek translation that existed likely from 100 B. C. through A. D. 200. Aquila's post-A.D. 100 Greek translation was not the Septuagint.

The fact that much later manuscript or codex editions of the Greek Septuagint varied does not prove that there was not an original old Greek Septuagint. Because there were Greek translations of different Old Testament books kept as separate scrolls made it much easier for the text of the old Septuagint to become mixed before a codex form of it was made after A. D. 200. The fact that there are many variations and differences in Latin Vulgate manuscripts does not prove that Jerome did not make a Latin translation.

 

[Logos1560]

"The Septuagint, or LXX.

"As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other.

A few KJV defenders and KJV-only advocates acknowledge the existence of a B. C. Greek Septuagint. The KJV translators acknowledged a B. C. Septuagint.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) wrote: “Even before the coming of Christ God had brought into being the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation which was to serve the Church as a temporary substitute until such a time as the ancient Hebrew Bible could be restored to her” (KJV Defended, p. 94; Text, p. 170). Edward F. Hills wrote: “In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ’s Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint” (p. 229; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 81). Edward F. Hills wrote: “The Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture” (p. 230; Text, p. 380; Believing Bible Study, p. 82). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Just as they [the Apostles] recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and other great historic translation of the holy Scriptures as providentially approved” (Ibid.; Text, pp. 380-381).


KJV defender Philip Mauro (1859-1952), whose book Which Version were partially reprinted in David Otis Fuller’s book True or False, wrote: “The apostles and other Jews of their day used the Septuagint version, from which version Stephen was evidently quoting, for that version adds two sons of Manasseh and three sons of Ephraim (see Num. 26:28-37 and 1 Chron. 7:20) who are not included in the Hebrew text” (Wonders, p. 48). Philip Mauro referred to “the sense of the passage, as given in the Septuagint version, which our Lord quoted in Matt. 24:15” (p. 142).

KJV defender Thomas Holland wrote: “The most notable Greek Old Testament, and arguably the most influential early English translation of the Hebrew canon, is the Septuagint (LXX)” (Crowned, p. 115).

Floyd Jones wrote: “The LXX is a very old translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Hellenistic Greek” (Chronology, p. 10). Floyd Jones admitted: “One cannot be certain that a Greek Old Testament did not exist before the time of Christ” (p. 14).

KJV defender Graham Chewter wrote: “Another reason for variation in wording [in NT quotations of the OT] is the use New Testament writers made of the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament into Greek which was produced around 250 BC” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 88). In this same book, KJV defender Douglas Somerset wrote: “The Septuagint is important as the first major translation of the Old Testament into another language, and as the Bible/Old Testament for many people over a period of 600 years or more. It is quoted in the New Testament” (p. 248). Douglas Somerset referred to “the numerous Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, some of which follow the Septuagint very closely, even when it departs from the Hebrew” (p. 253).

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning Genesis 41:48, Christian Ginsburg observed: “The most cursory examination of the Hebrew text shows that something has dropped out of it and that the Septuagint has preserved that which is missing” (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, p. 303). Concerning Joshua 2:1, Christian Ginsburg claimed: “Here the clause and the two young men came to Jericho is omitted because of the similar words and they came and they came. They are preserved in the Septuagint” (p. 175). Concerning 1 Samuel 3:15, Christian Ginsburg asserted: “Here the words ‘and he rose early in the morning’ are omitted because of the homoeoteleuton the morning … the morning. They are preserved in the Septuagint” (p. 177). Christian Ginsburg listed several other verses where he maintained that words are omitted in the Masoretic Text but they “are preserved in the Septuagint” (pp. 175-177).

Emanuel Tov claimed: “At the end of 2 Samuel 14:30, the LXX adds a sentence which has been omitted from MT by way of homoioteleuton” (Text-Critical Use, p. 72). Wayne Mitchell also cited 2 Samuel 14:30 as a place where the Masoretic Text omitted words (Scribal Skips, p. 49). Wayne Mitchell noted: “A Dead Sea Scroll containing 2 Samuel 24:16 records text from twenty-five Hebrew words that fell out of all other manuscripts by an early two-letter homoioarcton, with involvement of other letters” (p. 130). Wayne Mitchell claimed: “In 1 Kings 2:29, twenty-two Hebrew words of a message from king Solomon to Joab, along with Joab’s reply, were lost in MT by a two-word homoioteleuton to its next occurrence” (Ibid.). James VanderKam and Peter Flint wrote: “In 1 Kings 8:16, however, 4QKings preserves a passage that was lost from the Masoretic Text when a scribe’s eye skipped from one phrase to a similar phrase below” (Meaning of the Dead, p. 116).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other.

"Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*******d New Testaments come from!"

The Greek Septuagint is not a fable. The term Septuagint has been used with different meanings.

"In the study of Septuagint manuscripts, pride of place has traditionally been given to a few copies that are relatively old and relatively complete. The most famous are the trio known as Codex Vaticanus , Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. The first two date to the fourth century and the third to about a century later*.

"They appear to have a common Egyptian origin.
They also share several other characteristics:
Each is a codex, or leaf book, a form made popular by Christians;
Each is written on vellum, specially prepared lamb skin; the scribe of Each used an uncial script (a modification of the all-capital letter formations used primarily in inscriptions);
finally,
EACH was subjected to numerous alterations and corrections through erasures, interlinear markings and marginal notations."

What are they good for? Bird cage lining? Fish wrap? Nothing?

*UNLESS THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENT FORGERYS. And scholars recognize something that their predecessors tended to overlook: The age or condition of a manuscript is not an infallible guide to the age or condition of its text. A late copy may preserve an early reading."

"John Owen (1616-1683) is a well known Puritan theologian, pastor and prolific Bible commentator. He was a man who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and His Book. If you ever try to wade through any of his theological writings, you will immediately be impressed by his extraordinary scholarship and attention to detail. He knew his Bible.

"Here is an online site that contains most of his writings. COLLECTION OF JOHN OWEN'S WORKS

"In his massive exposition of Hebrews, John Owen makes some interesting observations regarding the relationship of the book of Hebrews to the LXX. He was well schooled in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac. He possessed a vast knowledge of manuscripts and other translations.

"In his work on the book of Hebrews, Owen discusses each passage in great detail about the Hebrew and Greek, along with comments about the LXX translations done by Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus. (These last three men mentioned each attempted a Greek translation of the O.T. after the N.T. was already completed. Today, there is little left of their writings, but we know that they all three differed from each other.)

"In his commentary, John Owen makes this amazing statement: "It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded... Should he [Paul] have had any respect unto that translation [LXX], it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth...

"And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION...

"Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear, so no reason can be assigned why the LXX - IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE - who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text." Exposition Of Hebrews, Vol I, Exercitation V. (CAPS are mine)"

From: Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Logos1560]

"In the study of Septuagint manuscripts, pride of place has traditionally been given to a few copies that are relatively old and relatively complete. The most famous are the trio known as Codex Vaticanus , Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. The first two date to the fourth century and the third to about a century later*.

As I already clearly noted, by referring to the Old Greek Septuagint I am referring to the Septuagint as it existed from B. C. 100 until A. D. 100. In that time period, copies of individual Old Testament books were made on scrolls. No codex existed until likely after A. D. 100.

Floyd Nolen Jones wrote: “An anachronism is the placing of a person or thing outside its proper time frame. The result would be the creation of an erroneous historical setting” (Chronology, p. 1). KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “Under no circumstance shall an anachronism be used in translating. It is wrong to refer to an item that did not exist in the Biblical times. It will not be true to the culture and historical setting” (Word-for-Word, p. 230). Jason Lisle declared: “To force a modern meaning on an ancient word would not be true to the author’s intention. This error is called the semantic anachronism fallacy” (Understanding, p. 129).

Did a codex or a printed book exist in the time period of 100 B. C. until A. D. 100?

Believers including KJV-only advocates should know that there could be no B. C. codex with a complete Hebrew OT from Genesis to Malachi nor a B. C. codex with a complete Greek OT from Genesis to Malachi.