Comparing the Septuagint and King James Bibles

[GermanSaxon]

Another Excellent help tool is E.C. Marsh's Septuagint vs. the King James. This is a good way to protect yourself from the jewish inspired OT text of the KJV. Most CI don't realize that the translators used the Bomberg text:

"For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[114] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[115] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[116]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[117] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Hope you enjoy this excellent website & program to protect you from the Pharisee's poison:

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/

You can download the program for free to your computer from:

http://ecmarsh.com/download/

German Saxon

[Fenwick]

I was planning to read an English translation of the Septuagint, but I wasn't sure which one would be best. You never know when some idiot throws in a few of his own interpretations based on dogma. I figured I was going to go with the Brenton one, unless anyone thinks there are better ones?

[GermanSaxon]

Fenwick,
Brenton's is one of the better translations available. It reads better than the older Charles Thomson translation and contains the Apocrypha. I will warn you that the type is small on the Hendrickson edition. There is a older Zondervan edition with slightly larger text but it was printed in small numbers and generally runs at a high price. Some of the Zondervan edition also "Do Not" contain the Apocrypha so examine first if you go that route.

Concerning other available Septuagint Translations:

Also Paul W. Esposito put out a larger print, modern english translation of the Brenton's Greek Septuagint. It does not contain the Apocrypha either which was considered by some as its one major fault. It was a pretty good update which left most race passages intact but it is out of print and copies fetch a high price. The NETS "New English Translation of the Septuagint" is also available with Apocrypha. I own a copy but really have not spent much time studying with it to form a opinion.

For word studies pick up a copy of "The Apostolic Bible" which has every greek OT word keyed to Strong's. I use it quite a bit and it contain a "word index" keyed to Strong's in the back. I highly recommend buying a copy to use with the Brenton's or you can get a free download of it. It does not contain the Apocrypha though but having all numbers keyed to Strong's in Greek opens up the Greek LXX OT to the layman. I am using its index to slowly Strongs key my 9th Edition Liddell & Scott Lexicon.

See this Christogenea topic for free download of Apostolic Bible:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4993

[Fenwick]

Ah yes, I've been reading through some of the Brenton's translation this last week. You can certainly see a lot of support for the interpretation of Genesis given by Bill and Clifton in the way the language is set forth.

[wmfinck]

There are a lot of caveats that should go along with the Septuagint. There are a lot more which should go along with Brenton's translation. I am NOT defending the Masoretic Text, however we need it if we are going to understand Hebrew word use and culture to any degree, and we also need it in the all-important investigation of names, which the LXX translators often botched due to their Hellenistic-era understanding.

Please see my essay, What is the Bible, here: http://christogenea.org/content/what-bible-presentation-euro-fellowship-conference-skype-07-24-2010
Or perhaps On Biblical Exegesis, here: http://christogenea.org/content/biblical-exegesis

Often I have caught Brenton following the KJV rather than the Greek. I can find dozens of examples but most of those I have are from the Apocryphal books, perhaps because I examined the Greek there to a greater extent.Maybe one day I will have the time (and funding) to translate the Septuagint.

Here is one minor error in Brenton, from Leviticus:17:14, the first clause of the verse:

KJV Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof...
LXE Leviticus 17:14 For the blood of all flesh is its life... (Brenton)

The Greek says "For the life of all flesh is its blood...", and NETS agrees with this.

The difference is trivial, but shows that Brenton was like the rest of us, and made mistakes. Which is why we always need to compare translations or read notes when they are available.

Here is a more serious error, from Deuteronomy 22:9:

KJV Deuteronomy 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
LXE Deuteronomy 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seed, lest the fruit be devoted, and whatsoever seed thou mayest sow, with the fruit of thy vineyard.

Here is how I would read the Greek: "You must not sow your vineyard with diverse seeds, that the fruit and the seed which you may sow with the fruit of your vineyard may not be sanctified"

This difference is significant, and my translation is literally correct, and agrees with the sense of the passage as it reads in the KJV, as well as with what we all know from the Law of God. However in this instance, NETS agrees with Brenton!

The difference comes from how a single phrase is read, ἵνα μὴ (pronounced hee-na may). For another passage where Brenton reads it as I have in this verse, I would refer to Genesis 11:7, where along with an appropriate verb Brenton wrote "that they may not understand".

I may have chosen better examples, but I did not want to be here all morning, and hopefully what I presented here serves to elucidate two things:

1 - that all available resources are necessary if we are going to begin to understand Scripture properly. For that reason I do not kick anything to the curb, so long as its provenance is known.

2 - that there is a large difference between reading the Bible, and studying it, and a proper study takes many many hours to even begin to find the truth of the smallest issues!

[marc4liberty]

I am reading Bill's "On Biblical Exegesis" and here is a quote:

Generally, my translations follow the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which each represent independent textual traditions), along with the papyri, where in comparison the Authorized King James Version generally follows the later Codices Bezae and Alexandrinus (which along with the Codex Ephraemi Syri and other later codices represents the so-called “Alexandrian tradition”).

I have read that the King James Version did not use the Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or Alexandrinus because they are derived from 45 "corrupted" papyrus manuscripts that started in 200 A.D. and flowed through Alexandria. This same source says that the KJV is more authentic (the True Word of Yahweh) because it derives from 5,210 original manuscripts, including the original NT manuscripts, that flowed through Antioch (where they were first called Christians).

Here is a chart that illustrates this: http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists ... idades.pdf

I'm not posting this to be disrespectful of Bill's or anyone else's opinion. I'm sure there is a good explanation for these differences. I am just trying to resolve this seeming contradiction for myself. After all, the Bible is fundamental to everything we learn on this forum. I deeply respect Bill's knowledge and ability to translate directly from original manuscripts. I don't think there are many people who are capable of doing that.

Bill has probably addressed this issue in his voluminous writings. I apologize for lacking the patience to find it on my own. I appreciate any input anyone is willing to provide.

[wmfinck]

Examining this chart entitled "Providential Preservation of the Text of the New Testament" (linked here) http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists ... idades.pdf I can only assert that this is not a very scholarly work. In fact, it is a distraction loaded with bullshit in order to help maintain the erroneous claims that the King James Version is somehow inspired by God.

This chart makes the assertion that there was a line of manuscripts from Antioch upon which the Syriac, Latin, and all of the traditional European Bible versions were based. In fact, it is quite certain that Antioch never saw many of the "original" New Testament manuscripts. For instance, by all ancient accounts Mark was written in Rome, and the attestations agree with the original language of that gospel. Acts was also written in Rome, at least in its final state. Evidence has it that John's Gospel and the Revelation were written in Ephesus. I have identified the times and places of the writing of all of Paul's epistles, and only Galatians could have been written from Antioch, while Hebrews was probably written to the Hebrew Christians of Antioch.

Note that not one ancient Greek manuscript is actually cited by the authors of the chart in support of their assertions concerning Antioch. Where are the ancient Greek manuscripts in the Antioch listing? There are none. And there are none because no such manuscripts exist, and they are making assertions which they cannot support.

For instance, the term Syra Vetus represents the oldest Syriac manuscripts, and actually represents two often-diverging texts, both of which are translations of the Greek gospels, and which date to approximately the 3rd or 4th centuries. The Peshitta is the most popular Syriac version and dates to the 4th or 5th centuries. Other other major versions were made even later, so evidently not all Syrians were happy with the Syra Vetus or the Peshitta.

These Syriac manuscripts do not always agree with one another, and they just as often agree with the Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus as they do with the Majority Text! The same can be said for the "Old Latin" so-called "originals" which the chart refers to.

Note also that in spite of the many differences they contain, the major ancient uncial manuscripts, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, are lumped together by the authors of this chart, as well as all of the Papyri, and all are attribute to the Alexandrians! Of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the chart says "Both had their roots in Alexandria and show the influence of Origen." Neither of these conclusions can be proven, and until they can (which is never) they amount to slander. Furthermore, neither of those Codices can honestly be said to have been written to expressly promote the views of Origen.

The Majority Text does not always agree with the Codex Alexandrinus. However I can say with all certainty that there are thousands of places where the Majority Text agrees with the Codex Alexandrinus against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, to the point where I can confidently assert that they do indeed have a basis in a common textual tradition. Why is this so? Because this is something the promoters of the so-called Byzantine tradition reflected in the Majority Text do not want to admit: The Codex Alexandrinus was brought from Alexandria to Byzantium and it is the mother of the Majority Text!

Some theologians have claimed that the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Syri have their origins in Lucian of Antioch, a textual critic of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. Even if this were true, it would hardly prove a connection with the original 1st century Christian community. However, in fact, the connection is only conjectured and has never been proven!

Ancient Christian writers were divided over the nature of Lucian's teachings. Some linked him to Eusebius, others to the heresy of Arian. It is true that Jerome disliked texts attributed to him, but we cannot be certain that those texts were the Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Syri which contributed to the later "Byzantine tradition"!

There is a principal called archaeological provenance which is very important to any serious investigator of history, and this chart makes many empty assertions because it displays no such principal. Therefore, it is based upon hearsay and slander. If there were Greek manuscripts which can be shown to have a provenance connecting them to 1st, 2nd or even 3rd century Antioch, I would be among the first to want to read them and consider what they said for my own translations. But there are none of any substance (I am not considering any possibilities among the papyri fragments).

The authors of this chart confuse TEXT TYPE with the origination of manuscripts. Many Biblical critics make that confusion. While there are Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western text types, the Byzantine never predominated until well into the Medieval period, and to a great degree it was based upon the Codex Alexandrinus. The Western text type was sometimes found in the East. The Alexandrian text type was found throughout the East! Simply because a manuscript bears the label "Alexandrian" does not mean that it originated in Alexandria. The labels have to do with the text, and were assigned arbitrarily - they do not mean that the texts originated in those places! The manuscripts of the Alexandrian text type (i.e. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus) diverge widely from one another.

Where I use the term "Alexandrian tradition", I use it differently than some of the mainstream scholars, and I probably need to do more writing in this area to explain myself. I use it to represent the text of the Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syri and Washingtonensis, and other manuscripts which closely agree with the first. Many modern scholars collectively call these the "Byzantine Text", and that has certainly contributed to confusion and to the false claims which are reflected in this chart.

Marlowe addresses some of these issues fairly: http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

This is a complex topic. I do not think I can do it justice in a book, let alone a forum post! While I am intimately familiar with the intricacies of the available ancient manuscripts, all of that familiarity is not loaded into memory within my feeble mind at any given time. But my opinions are based upon that familiarity, and how the readings of the manuscripts accord with Scripture.

Translation is an art as much as it is a science, and we can only hope to do our best. I am constantly inspecting myself, and I am always open to new information. But I cannot believe that the so-called "Majority Text" is the ultimate Bible. In fact, those manuscripts also often disagree with one another!

A random page from the copy of the NA27 I used for translating, so perhaps some of the considerations which go into translation may be realized. The apparatus below the text shows all of the variant readings:

_files/NA27_170-171.jpg

[marc4liberty]

Bill, I was hoping that your response would lead me to using a Bible that is considered the pure Word of Yahweh. There is apparently no such Bible available yet. Your translations perhaps come closest to this accomplishment. I find it somewhat disheartening that mankind apparently did a poor job of preserving Yahweh's Word.

As a side note, you said in your response that the authors of the chart did not cite even one ancient Greek manuscript to support their assertions concerning Antioch. However, at the top of the chart, under "APOSTLES" is an item "ORIGINAL N.T. Manuscripts 30-90 A.D." My interpretation of this is that the original manuscripts themselves may not have originated or even arrived in Antioch, but the authors of the manuscripts (the Apostles) came through Antioch and had a common Devine inspiration. Apparently even that wouldn't matter because apparently Antioch was not central to the authenticity of any Biblical document.

I have a new appreciation of the difficulty and complexity of knowing the Bible and the history of the Bible. I guess Yahweh did not intend it to be easy. Even Yahshua (Jesus) the Messiah said that it is not meant for everyone to know.

[Kentucky]

I find it somewhat disheartening that mankind apparently did a poor job of preserving Yahweh's Word.

What's disheartening is that man has taken the word of man, rather than the Word of God. The manuscripts should suffice for any student to rightly divide the word of truth, which is often confused with the translations and subsequent interpretations. I believe the divine intent and principles have been preserved if we but compare the plethora of witnesses and then taken wholistically. Man shall live "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Mt. 4:4. It may be difficult, but surely it is not impossible to harmonize Scripture. The situation we see today is that there is a famine of hearing the Word, not an absence of it. This is because the hunger and thirst for the truth is vicariously imitated through bread and circuses. People are entertained, rather than enlightened. "The light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not" John 1:5. There are decent Bibles and there are lousy Bibles, but we don't know which is which unless we dig deep to uncover the dirt that obscures the letters, words, sentences, paragraphs... books. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the honor of kings is to search out a matter" Prov. 25:2. It must be Providence that there is not a single pristine Bible given to us on a silver platter.

Mark

[ElleJay]

People are entertained, rather than enlightened.

Amen to all that you wrote, Mark!

(Some of the followingI have posted elsewhere.)

Some churches still hold what they call Bible studies. One such study I attended really pulled the wool over the eyes of pretty much everybody there ... because the students did not do their homework. They thought they had because they read from the lesson book and answered the questions ... but they did not study. Had they studied, they would have easily seen the misinformation ... the propaganda ... being fed to them. Amazingly, this study was an overview of the entire Bible, which was done in a year. The lesson book was bad enough, but the "teacher," in wanting everyone to participate, told the students that all answers were valid. That meant that if one held up what the Scripture said against what a student thought or felt ... that was as valid as what was written. (No, I could not hold my tongue ... but I was civil.)

Bible study "teacher" Beth Moore is a major teacher on the landscape of Judeo-Christendom today. Her "studies" fill a good portion of the women's Bible study section at Lifeway Christian Bookstores. I ran across a few of her study books at my Mother's. On the first page of one of the books she made a statement that she thought something was in the Bible, but was not sure. (If I had the book handy, I would quote it to you.) I KNEW it was in the Bible ... but the things was, a teacher, to me, should never write what they "think" is in the Bible ... they had better know it before launching a study (Or know it before by the time they finish it)!!! There are more problems with her "teaching" than this, for she is exposing herself to be a part of the Emergent Church movement. I listened to one of her audio lessons because I have a friend that is a follower of Beth Moore. I could hardly get through it. She is definitely extra-biblical, in that she "hears" from God ... and tells the people what she hears ... very much like the Jesus Calling author.

Marc4liberty ... It is disheartening ... that the Bible is misused and misapplied ... and misunderstood ... but the Truth is there in a number of versions. Yes, we have to put our minds in gear ... but we have simple helps for those of us with simple minds. Knowing the Scriptures is never-ending ... but there is enough between the covers of the KJV or the Septuagint, The Christogenea New Testament (and a few more) ... along with a concordance or two (or three), so that if we want to do a word study, we can. The important thing is to read the Bible ... have a reading plan. That will give you the best overview. The side studies are the ice cream on the cake. If we stumble around worrying about which version is the best ... especially when they are all flawed ... we may become disheartened enough to stop our search for Truth ... but each time you sit down to read, simply ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth ... and enjoy learning our history. (Thankfully, we do have many helps on this site ... the forum ... the articles ... the messages [our secret weapon, Bill ... okay ... he is not so secret any more] ... the links [Mark Downey/Kentucky for one ... and Clifton's] ... which are a GREAT help in our adventure of exploring Yahweh's Word!!!

It is snowing here. I think I shall close this off and go and enjoy it. I came from an area of our nation where I saw very little snow ... and now I live where we get some. I am fascinated every
time it falls