More accurate?

[franklinmonroe]

... Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, ...

I am familiar with the claim that some New Testament writers apparrently quoted the Septuagint. However I am not familiar with your assertion: that Jesus and his (Twelve) disciples 'preferred' the LXX above the Hebrew text. Can you provide some examples of 'many scholars" that make this claim?

 

[TC]

Ya gotta laugh- these folks criticize the newer versions because there is a "profit conspiracy". Well, click on most KJVO websites and there are dozens of ads for KJVO materials. They ain't giving this stuff away, folks!

Not when there are $$dollars$$ to be made off the gullible. :BangHead:

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

although, when all's said and done, Jesus and the Apostles deviated from the Masoretic Text and the KJB in the OT.

so deal with it.

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

so they affirmed the Hebrew canon, but they didn't reject the text.

no surprise, becos KJBO's Tridentine and SDA foundations came a little later! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thermodynamics]

To those that support the Septuagint OT.

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

Steven, in this case I am afraid you are dead wrong my friend! The English Bible uses the words "jot and tittle," but that is not at all what you find when you go back and have a look at the Greek of the Textus Receptus.

In the TR Jesus uses the words "iota" and "keraia." An iota is the smallest GREEK letter and a keraia is a GREEK diacritical mark.

So the verse you use as support actually suggests that Jesus may very well have been using the then almost 300 year old Greek Septuagint.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Clearly you did not read the article and it is no rubbish.

http://www.moresureword.com/LXXHOAX.htm

In Jesus.

Steven.

I read far enough to find that the absurd claim that the Septuagint was a 4th Century AD fraud was based on "reasearch" by none other that Peter Ruckman.

Believe me, anything that heritic Ruckman says does not add any weight to your argument. That man takes Bible verses out of context, claims that clear references to God and Jesus are in fact references to the Bible, supports idol worship of the King James Bible.

 

[Tater77]

Ok. I'm calling you out. What in the world kind of name is "tatermonkey"???? :laugh::laugh: On second thought, maybe I don't want to know. :tongue3:

Well, my name is actually Tate and some coworkers at my old job from college just kind of made it up one day. Then called me that in front of everyone so it just stuck.

Mostly because I'm quite fun loving and a bit goofy at times. The name fits though, I'm a very light hearted person. I like to cheer people up with laughter. :laugh:

And its far better than the bazillion "tatersalad" jokes I get told.

 

[Tater77]

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)"

Steven did you realize that Christ is talking to a crowd of Jews and that they called the Torah the "Law". This passage is not quite talking about what you think it does. Think about the last part "till all be fulfilled". Is that something that has yet to be done or is it someone Christ has already done?

Think about it.

 

[pilgrim2009]

[attack on good translations of God's Word snipped. Poster warned that he is about to be suspended if he will not abide by the rules]

 

[sag38]

Copied from Pilgrim's last diatribe. I believe all these new Bibles are disreputable, and untrustworthy frauds and not the truth. They are an affront and offense to the true Word of God.

You have just called the Bible I use, the copyrighted NASB, disreputable, an untrustworthy fraud, and not the truth. You have also said this of the ESV, the NIV, and other modern translation. And Pilgrim, you are breaking the rules by making such statements.

 

[Thermodynamics]

All the new versions of the Bible have been copyrighted by the major book publishers who are out to make themselves rich off of gullible Christians, who they can convince by their propaganda, that their new versions are better and more accurate and easier to read than the KJV. They are liars. Besides, how can man have the audacity to "copyright" God's Word and make it their property for commercial profit? That in itself is proof that these translations are something besides God's Word, and their purpose is questionable.

Steven, next time you have the chance to look at a King James Bible printed in Britain, glance at the title page. There you'll find the words "Rights in the Authorized Version of the Bible are vested in the Crown." That means that in Britain the KJV is under copyright.

Copyright laws in the US are different, anything published before 1923 (like the King James Bible) is no longer under copyright. That means that among others the RV of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 are also not under copyright.

 

[Thermodynamics]

BTW - I had hoped you would at least respond to post #144 in this thread.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

The news electrified the Vatican. Jesuits, skilled in languages, were immediately ordered to join the Anglican church. Certain advisors trusted by King James were deep catholic agents. Puritans suspected that some of these men chosen to assist them were not of God. They complained to King James, but he overrode their objections.

are those alleged agents' names readily available? was, um, Virginia Mollenkott one of them?

c'mon, why go thru all that trouble when the KJB was already heavily based outta the Douay-Rheims Romish Bible?

Later, two Jesuits were soundly converted and they informed the puritans of the conspiracy against the Protestant movement and the Word of God. The Jesuits were afraid that an English Bible printed without the Apocrypha, read throughout England, would end Catholicism throughout the English speaking world, and would block any ecumenical movement in the future. In 1655 the surviving Puritans brought forth the entire 1611 edition of the bible without the Apocrypha that had been implanted. This was God's victory over the Jesuit conspiracy.

got the names of those two "soundly converted" Jesuits? did one of them happen to be David Wilkinson?

but think about it, by KJBOist logic, they'd succeeded in replacing the Protestants' Geneva Bible--so why so afraid?

Having lost this battle, the Vatican decided to attack the King James Bible, by making updates, saying that it was 'obsolete.' against protests, a committee was formed to create a "new and better" translation of the Bible. Two men on the committee, Hort and Wescott (both of whom were closet Catholics), put tremendous pressure on the others to accept the Alexandrian manuscript (Vaticanus) from which they produced their new Bible. The result was that Protestants were being given a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible. It was the first of many, called "the Revised Version."

weren't Westcott n Hort both as Anglican as King James I? or does pilgrim2009 buy into the KJBO myths concerning W-H?

From there they have continued with many new translations (as the NASB, TEV, NRSV, NKJV, etc.), each one more corrupted, and closer to the desired final version, which is to be the New Age Bible for all religions. It will be called the New Revised International Version.

wld this by any chance be taken fr Mrs God-And Riplinger? anyone checked if she's stopped using her secret silver rosary? :laugh:

The Lord Jesus told us in Luke 20:46 "Beware of the scribes." Those who write the materials that the people read, have a great power to influence the readers opinions. Everyone knows the power of the printed word, even secular newspapers. So today the false preachers are pumping out false doctrines and trying to cause men to disbelieve the Word of God and true biblical doctrines that will lead to salvation....

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/which_version_of_the_bible_is_most_accurate.html

the greatest irony, of course, is KJBOs' nonstop plagiarism of each others' ideas n words--they're the real "scribes," as inbred as those of Christ's day!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ya gotta laugh- these folks criticize the newer versions because there is a "profit conspiracy". Well, click on most KJVO websites and there are dozens of ads for KJVO materials. They ain't giving this stuff away, folks!

My first contact (about 1968) with some early KJVOs was through the mail (no FaceBook back then The mail contact was a King James Version sellsperson. He told me how bad what ever was being run down in 1968 was. What was the MV back then?

Recal in 1611 that the KJV was a MV (modern version)

 

[pilgrim2009]

The very defense defending modern day bibles and mr Westcott and Hort is nothing but a Jesuit defense system.Another system of deception.Jesuits has so infilterated society I dont doubt there are a few on this board pretending to be protestants.

The Christian church and what she stood for for 1800 years has about been destroyed through wordliness and modern day marketing methods and the attack on the New Testament TR translated into english.

The day my SBC over 80 year old pastor leaves and a new worldly modern day bible version preacher replaces him will be the day I will leave the SB.

While most are waiting for the pre-trib rapture jesuit deception with their modern day bibles many that know the truth are preparing for a timeof trouble this world has never seen.Its not far off so get ready and only the prepared will be able to stand in that day with the Sword of Truth-KJB.

The attacks on the KJB here is no different than me reversing the attack.

Woe to the Jesuits.

God bless in Jesus.

 

[pilgrim2009]

My first contact (about 1968) with some early KJVOs was through the mail (no FaceBook back then The mail contact was a King James Version sellsperson. He told me how bad what ever was being run down in 1968 was. What was the MV back then?

Recal in 1611 that the KJV was a MV (modern version)

Oh the weird ideas.The KJB was not translated from the MV Manuscripts so this argument wont hold water brother.

All bibles in english the word of God hugh?

Well go out and buy you a NWT because it is no different from other MV Bibles.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The attacks on the KJB here is no different than me reversing the attack.

Woe to the Jesuits.

God bless in Jesus.

I haven't seen any attacks on the KJV here, I have seen your attacks upon other versions.

And I am no more a Jesuit than you are.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well go out and buy you a NWT because it is no different from other MV Bibles.

That is an... well, there's no nice way to say it... IDIOTIC statement.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pilgrim 2009's Trailer:
// Most critics of the KJV Bible have never studied the other side in favor of the KJV.They would rather trust a stream of deception that they do not believe exist.

The old lie still stands.

Yea hath God said? {Genesis 3:1}AV KJB. //

1. I am NOT a critic of the KJVs
2. I have tried, but failed, to get a direct reading of which KJV is the KJB??? No agreement on this???
3. I am a critic of those who tell me that the KJVs ONLY are the Written Word of God or is the 'Word of God': Messiah Yeshua.

Other Inerrant Scripture says
Genesis 3:1-3 (NIV = New International Version):
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Note that the Woman knew EXACTY what God said on the subject.
Note that the Tempter, The serpent, the evil one, the lead Devid LIED: not about what God said - but WHY God said it. (See Gen 3:5).

The old lie comes out just as good in the NIV:
// "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" //
Same doctrine as the KJVs teach. BTW, did anybody note that the answer to the Serpent's question is "God DID NOT really say that"

Here is a more accurate way than one-version-onlyism:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Oh the weird ideas.The KJB was not translated from the MV Manuscripts so this argument wont hold water brother.

All bibles in english the word of God hugh?

Well go out and buy you a NWT because it is no different from other MV Bibles.

1. Actually, the NT of the KJB (whichever of the KJVs this might be) wasn't translated totally from the Textus Recepti (plural of Textus Receptus - yes, there were multiple copies of some New Testament (N/T) books in the original Greek)

2. Only about 70% of the N/T of the MVs use non-KJV source material. Most MV translator groups, like The KJV Translator group, documented the N/T sources and their variants. Translator footnotes that pertain to the source and translation variants are telling the truth; Bibles which lack translator footnotes are telling lies -- multiple original lanaguage source texts exist for the N/T and O/T alike.

3. Even the NWT teaches all the correct doctrines - if you do NOT make the mistake of taking one and only one verse and making a whole doctrine out of it. Yes, I have a copyu of the NWT that I've looked at -- most one-book-onliests don't. I didn't by it - somebody got saved at my church and left me their copy (I traded it for a valid English Bible).

 

[EdSutton]

Bro,

To a man, the translators of the KJV were part of the early Anglican Church. The Anglican Church (Church of England) was basically just a reinvention of the Roman Catholic Church. Their theology was very similar. They all had things like "dedications" to Mary, etc.

I notice you never responded to my post in another thread, where I pointed out that Erasmus was a Mary worshipper [sic], until the day that he died. I also noticed you ignored the fact that portions of the KJV agree with the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to other more reliable sources. Even in some instances, with the Dhouay Rheims...

Perhaps you need to study the English reformation, my friend. This reformation was one of authority, NOT theology. These people agreed with the Roman Catholic Church's theology. They were heretics, who believed in baptismal regeneration, purgatory, works righteousness, etc.

Tell me, why is it that the KJV translators called the Septuagint the "word of God", yet it is condemned by KJVO folks??

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God."

The KJV translators, themselves, believed in having multiple translations.

I dont [sic] know about that.Since you praise the ESV and think its [sic] so accurate what think ye of this article?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/esv.htm

Out of curiosity (since I have been away for a couple of days and am just now reading the BB), why are you attempting to change the subject, in this response? Whether the ESV (or any other translation be it some so-called "older version" or "MV" is a good one or a bad one has absolutely zero to do with the post of Havensdad.

FTR, Havensdad and I have strongly disagreed in the past on certain issues, but that has nothing to do with questions raised, and the 'response' of pilgrim2009 in the post(s) at hand.

Why not answer the questions asked, rather than ignoring them and attempting to use some classic "bait and switch" technique?

Havensdad has raised both legitimate questions and made some at least questionable charges, IMO.

Surely one who wants to be seen to be as knowledgeable as you, yourself, seem to want to appear, can do better than cast aspersions on something completely unrelated to the subject matter.

Ed