The FINAL AUTHORITY of the King James Bible; Never Bring a Knife to a Theological GunFight;
Preface: It is not the purpose of this study to prove to anyone or even defend the FINAL AUTHORITY of the King James Bible. Nor is it the purpose to defend myself before God and man as a KJV ONLY believer. God forbid! This would be futile and a waste of time.
The ultimate purpose of this work is to
Contend for the FAITH
Jude 1:3
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
King James Version (KJV)
Let's talk seriously about Revelation 3:7-12 KJB (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
If you think Bible Translations are NOT a big deal?
Revelation 3:10
“Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”
King James Version (KJV)
The Church of Laodicea Today vs The Church of Philadelphia (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Tale of 2 Christians #Philadelphia vs #Laodicea #Spiritual Warfare (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Revelation 1:9
“I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
King James Version (KJV)
To REBUKE the evil WORKERS OF INIQUITY WHO ATTACK the King James Bible as the preserved FINAL AUTHORITY of the WORD of GOD and thereby use and promote perverted Translations - modern Bible Translations.
Titus 1:13
“This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;”
King James Version (KJV)
Titus 1:15
“Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
King James Version (KJV)
This is done as an ETERNAL WITNESS and TESTIMONY for The Lord Jesus Christ.
Why we need to know that God Records Memorials (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Psalms 12:6
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
King James Version (KJV)
Psalms 12:7
“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
King James Version (KJV) Note: Stop here and compare what the perverted Translations - including the Septuagint
say in Psalms 12:7 to the KING JAMES BIBLE. I will be discussing the Septuagint at length in this study
SEPTUAGINT: 6(11:6) The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7(11:7) Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.
I also like to tell believers of perverted translations and especially KJV Haters to explain why they confuse Satan with Jesus when reading Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:6 and why the King James Bible clearly makes a distinction.
2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 13:30
“Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”
King James Version (KJV)
Romans 1:22
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
King James Version (KJV)
2 Timothy 2:23
“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”
King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 7:6
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
King James Version (KJV)
There is no doubt in my mind after more than 50 years of attending church(ES)
The Greatest Enemy to the Saints - The Church of Philadelphia is the ATTACK on the King James Bible.
The History of the King James Bible. Why it is the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's Word:
As Dr Grady explains - details so well in his book, THE FINAL AUTHORITY, the Vatican - enter the Jesuits made the King James Bible public enemy number one.
It is relentless. I witnessed the horror as I had a front row seat to the train wreck of watching my son’s first year at Fuller Theological Seminary as he was fed PURE SATANIC lies of not only accepting but mandating the LXX, NASB, ESV and other perverse translations. Meanwhile the KING JAMES was only looked upon with very thinly veiled scorn, contempt. His textbooks he would read to me were full of not only heretical but BLASPHEMY to question by ever so subtle means the very divinity of Jesus Christ and of course relegating Him as the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity.
See Cameron Moshfegh’s study on Who is Jesus Christ Godhead vs Trinity
Who is Jesus Christ? Godhead versus Trinity by Cameron Moshfegh (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Hours spent in conversation with Dr. Hinton MA Harvard University School of Divinity and how ALL, repeat ALL of Professors were either Atheists or Agnostic and the KING JAMES BIBLE was always put aside (secretly scorned). And the lies surrounding the LXX.
(See my testimony Why I don’t go to church)
I Don't Go To Church (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Tale of 2 Christians #Philadelphia vs #Laodicea #Spiritual Warfare (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
LIES from the PITS of HELL.
The Septuagint-The Apostles Bible - History of the Early Church
David Bercot. This is David Bercot’s most in-depth teaching on the Septuagint (LXX) to-date. Bercot explains what the LXX is and relates its history. Jesus and His apostles almost always quoted from the LXX when they quoted the O.T. The LXX was the O.T. of the early church. However, the Roman Catholic Church eventually switched from the LXX to the Masoretic Text (MT), and the Reformers followed suit.
LIES from the PITS of HELL.
Lamp in the Dark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5ZgR6DqTPY&t=5730s&pp=ygUQbGFtcCBpbiB0aGUgZGFyaw%3D%3D
A Lamp in the Dark is an exciting new documentary that unfolds the fascinating "untold" history of the Bible, revealing critical information often overlooked in modern histories. Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins and wolves in sheep's clothing.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Papal Inquisition forbade biblical translation, threatening imprisonment and death to those who disobeyed. Learn the stories of valiant warriors of the faith, such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, the ancient Waldenses, Albigenses and others who hazarded their lives for the sake of sharing the Gospel light with a world drowning in darkness.
Once the common people were able to read the Bible, the world was turned upside down through the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers subdued whole kingdoms by preaching the grace of God, and exposing the unbiblical doctrines of Rome. In response, the Vatican would launch a Counter Reformation to destroy the work of the Reformers, including the bibles they produced.
____________________________________
John Doerr is the Executive Producer of the video. His Youtube Channel / john33kjv
ABOUT THE PRODUCTION
This ground-breaking documentary is also filled with rich visual graphics and dramatic re-enactments of key historic events.
Included in this 3 hour DVD:
1) The history of the early Church, with the warnings from Jesus and the Apostles about "grievous wolves" and apostasy.
2) How the Inquisition began for the purpose of silencing Christians and outlawing the Bible.
3) The Bible translations of John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and finally the King James Version.
4) The Protestant Reformation and the reasons behind it.
5) Key doctrines confronted by the Reformers (i.e. Indulgences, Inspiration of Scripture, Salvation, Transubstantiation, Veneration of Mary, and Papal claims of authority).
6) The Counter Reformation which began with the founding of the Jesuit Order in 1540.
7) The Vatican's involvement with the Critical Text and their influence over world-wide biblical translation in the 20th century.
Tares Among the Wheat
https://youtu.be/qe3CMDXeG4w?si=0-9xk5bkz5BAThH9
Tares Among the Wheat will likely challenge what most scholars believe about Bible history, and the origins of modern Textual Criticism. In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus. The work was discovered by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared it to be the oldest Bible ever found. Yet shortly after his discovery was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created by him in 1840. The controversy surrounding these events is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. It involves the Jesuits, the Pope, a high-minded German, a collection of Anglo-Catholics, and a mysterious Greek patriot. It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know nothing about. Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world's understanding of biblical scholarship to this day, and the footnotes in your Bible are the proof of it.
Bridge To Babylon: Rome, Ecumenism & The Bible – A Lamp In The Dark Part III
https://youtu.be/ukRCVDmiAts?si=dkTyyGofIuymxpI5
Synopsis: In 1881, two scholars named Westcott and Hort published a revision of the New Testament that would send shockwaves through the academic world. Their new textual theory declared that the King James Version (which had been trusted for centuries) was full of errors. Sacred readings, long cherished by the faithful, were now declared to be forgeries. The world was informed that the book, which had been called the inerrant Word of God, was in need of correction. The new theory claimed that recently recovered manuscripts revealed a truer version of Scripture. Yet others warned that these manuscripts were, in fact, the creation of early Gnostic heretics that had been rightly abandoned centuries before. Was the new revision filled with ancient corruptions? Follow the story of the Bible’s controversial history into the twentieth century, as the work of Westcott and Hort would transform biblical scholarship, inspire the work of various Bible Societies, and pave the way for the cause of ecumenical unity between Evangelical Protestants and Rome.
Information covered in this documentary:
1) The history of the Revision of the Bible in 1881.
2) The objections of Dean John W. Burgon concerning the “new Greek text” invented by Anglican scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.
3) The analysis of George Sayles Bishop, R.L. Dabney and William G. Blaikie who likewise opposed the Revision of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century.
4) Proof that the purpose of the Revision was to overthrow the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation.
5) The warnings of Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener who declared that the theory behind the new Greek text was based on conjecture and fantasy.
6) The “Romish” doctrines of Westcott and Hort, as revealed in their letters, along with admissions of willful deception and heresy.
7) The warnings of early Church fathers concerning the corruptions of Gnostic heretics who altered ancient manuscripts in the early centuries.
8) Examples from the Critical Text of what are believed to be Gnostic influences that currently influence the majority of modern bibles.
9) How the work of Westcott and Hort was transformed into the Nestle-Aland Greek text, used by the vast majority of Bible colleges and universities, as well as most Bible translations.
10) The beliefs of Dr. Kurt Aland (the chief influence behind the Nestle-Aland Greek text) who denied the apostolic authorship of the New Testament, and suggested that Jesus may have been a mere “phantom.”
11) The influence of Dr. Bruce Metzger, a leading Bible critic of the 20th century (who worked on the RSV and NRSV translations) and his denial of the authorship of Moses in the Old Testament.
12) The influence of William Cameron Townsend, founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Dr. Eugene Nida, father of the dynamic equivalence method of Bible translation (i.e. paraphrase).
13) The development of “bridge bibles” and what they mean.
14) The discovery of the Bodmer Papyri by a Jesuit priest.
15) Proof that the discovery of the Bodmer Papyri is associated with ancient Gnostic groups from the Nag Hammadi region of Egypt.
16) The influence of Rome, her Jesuits, and the ecumenical movement in the development of a single Greek text, as the “one world Bible” to unify all churches.
17) Discussion with Dr. James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) concerning his defense of the Critical Text and modern versions in general.
Featured Speakers: Dr. Phil Stringer, Dr. David Brown, David Daniels, Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Jack Moorman, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, Dr. H.D. Williams, Dr. Ronald Cooke & Dr. James R. White.
Bridge To Babylon is the sequel to 'A Lamp in the Dark' and 'Tares Among The Wheat' from The Untold History Of The Bible documentary series.
YouTube informed me that the owner gave permission for this video upload to be on YouTube. God Bless Chris Pinto! :) Thanks to his documentary, A Lamp In The Dark: The Untold History of the Bible, I stopped reading the New American Standard, which I had read for years, and started reading the real Bible, the King James.
Also in my video uploads are Chris Pinto's first two documentaries in the series: A Lamp In The Dark: The Untold History of the Bible, and Tares Among The Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp In The Dark. Hope everyone that hasn't seen them will watch those too.
David Daniel
Heartbreaking why the author of the King James Preface Dr. Miles Smith final editor of the 1611 King James Bible, referred to the apostles using the Septuagaint - EVEN though he admitted its flaws. For a different subject for a different day although devout religious (RELIGION Church of England) men ULTIMATELY they were extraordinarily brilliant scholars in Ancient Greek and Hebrew as well as the English Language from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster College.
Two key issues:
Dr. Smith’s claim does not match research done to prove the Septuagint was not written before Jesus Christ. See my links below on David Daniel in link below.
Dr. Miles Smith was a devout churchman, a Calvinist* but was a conformist in his allegiance to the Church of England that had been infiltrated by the Vatican, most notably during the reign of Queen Mary I a devout Catholic in1588. Dr. Miles Smith’s church was also noted with its involvement with the Knights of Columbus.
The bottom line is whatever the fallacies of the translators (including some of their belief in the Trinity) God used their brilliant scholarship and the POWER of the King (as prophesied by William Tydale while burning at the stake in 1536 by the Vatican for translating the Bible into English. God answered Tyndale’s prayer that the King’s EYES BE OPENED 75 Years later.
"Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The prayer was answered in part when three years later, in 1539, Henry VIII required every parish church in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners.
Isn’t it just like the Devil to use the very enemy of the King James Translation (See the Jesuit Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and study how the Vatican is now claiming the King James Bible was based on Catholic Doctrine) to have its infiltration with the RELIGIOUS institutions.
Isn’t it just like the Devil to use his agents like this WORKER OF INIQUITY CHARLIE GARRETT I REBUKE HERE
For a thorough background of these 47 men I urge you to read Dr. Grady’s book the FINAL AUTHORITY or Dr. Riplinger’s Book the King James Translators.
We have to account for 3 key essential factors of why the King James Preface mentioned the Septuagint.
They clearly stated it had problems but was used as among all sources and we MUST UNDERSTAND the full contextual meaning of their discussion.
They were brilliant linguists but mediocre historians because:
The immense pressure no doubt from the Church of England that had been infiltrated by the Vatican.
Why did the Preface of King James approve of reading other translations?
The Embarrassing Preface to the King James Version
Posted ByBill Combs
Again, CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
They were not referring to the CORRUPTED VERSIONS OF TODAY
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.
Dr. Miles Smith The Walking Dictionary and renowned Scholar who penned the Preface
Full Preface
to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to be most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not only of their service books, portesses, and breviaries, but also of their Latin translation ? The service book supposed to be made by St. Ambrose, ( Officium Ambrosianum), was a great while in special use and request : but pope Adrian, calling a council with the aid of Charles the emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the service book of St. Gregory universally to be used.1 Well, Officium Gregoidanum gets by this means to be in credit ; but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Roman service was of two fashions ; the new fashion, and the old (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his preface before Micrologus. The same Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Rivo, that, about the year of our Lord 1277, pope Nicolas the third removed out of the churches of Rome the more ancient books (of service), and brought into use the missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there ; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, (of the new stamp). Neither was there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late. Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had ; which moved him to abolish all other breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by bishojjs in their dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568. Now, when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly [Jer. vi. 14], and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their odds and jarring ; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with ; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us : O tandem major par cas insane minori (Horace) : they that are less sound themselves ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them, that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives, found fault with their vulgar translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made ; they would answer, peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them ; albeit they were in no other sort enemies, than as St. Paul was to the Galatians (iv. 16), for telling them the truth: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, that pope Leo the tenth allowed Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his apostolic letter
(1) Durand. lib. 5. c. 2.
The preface of "the translators to the reader" of the Holy Bible : appointed to be read in churches, first published in 1611
The following is a SHARP REBUKE of a REPROBATE WICKED False Teacher, (Dr??) Charlie Garrett and HIS KIND like Johnny from the swamp full of demonic hatred for The KIng James Bible and those like me who are KJV ONLY believers they call CULTISTS, and to those who by LIES of the Devil through False Humility claim they like the King James “among other translations”
This wicked WORKER OF INIQUITY hates the King James Bible, claiming it is full of errors and yet he claims to use the New King James bible (among others) in his website.
Noting the framed Hebrew text next to him and the garble on his chalk board including the Arabic I am not surprised this wicked man hates the King James Bible. The laugh of him insisting he’s not a 501C3 is interesting, proving they know they have to put on this outward appearance of Righteousness. He warns those like myself not to contact him and correct him. He openly admits the Fathers of Catholicism supported other versions. He preaches another gospel, He is a Trinitarian, he is a closet Jesuit and a full fledged JUDAIZER..
See my study on the Case Study of how the Hebrew Judaizers attack the King James Bible
Comment from Brother Cameron Moshfegh:
Indeed, this person is delusional.
At a first glance I see a person completely trapped in the carnal mind, having his rationality (casting doubt on everything), which is man's wisdom, pushed on the word of God. The whole argumentation is built on man's wisdom.
If it only was rationality, there would not be hatred towards the King James Bible.
But the immense hatred towards the King James Bible throughout the text reveals its Satanic nature.
This is a perfect example of how the carnal mind succumbs to the devices of Satan:
- Pushing rationality on the word of God really creates immense pain in the soul because his spirit knows it's wrong (1 Corinthians 2:13-14).
- But because this person's carnal mind is blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4), he doesn't really see what he is doing to himself and the pain turns into hatred (Titus 3:3). The soul is not under the check of a renewed spirit (Titus 3:3-6).
- His hatred keeps him pushing more and more rationality on the word of God with pleasure (Romans 1:28-32).
- By pushing rationality on the word of God, he is pushing beams into his own eyes, and calling this "a win for reason" traps him only further in his hypocrisy and blindness of his carnal mind (Matthew 7:5).
Background: HERE IS YOUR ANTIVENOM:
Why the King James matters and why so many attack it.
The Foundation is The WORD OF GOD
The Final Authority of the King James Bible
RUN AWAY from the Scofield Reference Bible (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Modern Bible translations are satanic:
https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2018/10/modern-bible-translations-are-satanic.html
The History of the King James Bible. Why it is the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's Word:
Why the King James Bible uses ONLY BEGOTTEN and NOT only Son.
Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - John 3:16, Only Begotten (av1611.com)
Which King James Bible Version would I recommend? (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
David Daniel
King James Bible
Dr. Grady Final Authority
Dr. Samuel Gipp
Dr. G A Riplinger
Dr. Phil Stringer
Dr. David Brown
David Daniels
Dr. D.A. Waite
Dr. Jack Moorman
Dr. James R. White
Dr. John Hinton
Doctrine is: Learning The Teaching of the Word of God (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Understand the Bible - From a Workman Approved unto God by His Grace (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Tale of 2 Christians #Philadelphia vs #Laodicea #Spiritual Warfare (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Saints we are to MARK THEM (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
We are to Judge - Understanding Judgment in the Realm (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
They that Observe Lying Vanities Forsake Their own Mercy (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Church of Laodicea Today vs The Church of Philadelphia (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR. Doctrine Matters (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Who is Jesus Christ? Godhead versus Trinity by Cameron Moshfegh (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Case Study of the JUDAIZER using the HEBREW LANGUAGE AS A TRAP (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS: ALL OF THE TRUTH GIVEN WILL NOT BE RECEIVED BY THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE TRUTH IN THEM Read John 8:42-27 KJB.
Charlie Garrett
Charlie attended Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College and graduated Magna Cum Laude in 2009. He was ordained at Grace Baptist Church, Sarasota in 2010. He has written an analysis of every verse in the Bible from Romans 1:1 to Revelation 22:11. His sermons include detailed studies in Hebrew and Greek as well as the cultural, historical, and pictorial aspects of the text presented.
NOW COMPARE THIS LITERARY GENIUS WITH THESE KING JAMES SCHOLARS:
John Bois’ company worked on the translation of the Apocryphal books; Genesis through II Kings were assigned to Lancelot Andrewes and his group; and the New Testament Epistles were translated by a committee led by Dr. William Bedwell.
The conditions for translation work for a project of the magnitude of the entire English Bible were ideal in the early seventeenth century in England. The translators operated with the blessing and the financial aid of the king himself. All of the scholarship and resources of Cambridge University, Oxford University and Westminster Abbey were at the translators’ disposal. An invitation was extended to “all principal learned men of the kingdom” to participate as consultants or advisors. Historians concur that during this era the English language had “ripened to its full perfection” (from Alexander McClure’s The Translators Revived). McClure also stated that “the study of Greek, and of the oriental languages, and of rabbinical lore, had been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since.” The character and credentials of the translators were impeccable. Lancelot Andrewes, while a young student at Cambridge, learned a new language each year during Easter break. After several years, he had mastered most of the languages of Europe. Andrewes spoke Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic and at least fifteen other languages. It was said of him that he could have been “interpreter general” at the Tower of Babel! He was also reputed to have spent an average of five hours each day in prayer. Among the Christians of his day he was known as “the star of preachers.” It was said that “those who stole his sermons could never steal his preaching.” Andrewes had the privilege of being selected, from among all the preachers in the land, to deliver the annual Christmas Day sermon for the royal family, beginning with Queen Elizabeth and continuing for many years during the reign of King James.
William Bedwell produced translations of the Scriptures into Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee and Arabic. He produced a Persian dictionary and a three-volume Arabic lexicon. He was a master of the Semitic languages, which shed much light on Hebrew words and phrases, most importantly those Hebrew words and phrases that found their way into the Greek language of the New Testament.
John Bois read through the Hebrew Bible by age five, and by age six was writing Hebrew legibly. He was often found studying Greek at the Cambridge library from four a.m. until 8 p.m. (sixteen hours a day!). Bois tutored many of his fellow students at the University in Greek, and his class was also attended by many of his Greek professors! John Bois served as pastor of St. John’s Church before, during, and after his work as Bible translator. He preached without notes, but not without much prayer and study. He had the entire Greek New Testament committed to memory. He practiced fasting twice a week, and often gave to help the poor until he had no more to give himself. Among Bois’ writings was a commentary in Latin on the Gospels and Acts. Even after his retirement, he spent eight hours a day in study, mostly reading and correcting the ancient authors.
Dr. Miles Smith was known as “a walking library.” He was called by his contemporaries “an incomparable theologist.” He had studied all of the writings of the Latin and Greek church fathers, and was as well versed in Arabic, Chaldee and Syriac as he was in English. It was said of Smith that he “had Hebrew at his fingers’ ends.” He was chosen by the other translators to write the Preface to the King James Bible, The Translators to the Reader. Concerning his fellow translators, he wrote: “There were many chosen who were greater in other men’s eyes than their own, and who sought the truth rather than their own praise.” Miles Smith served as the final editor on the King James translation, perusing the entire text of the Bible before it went to press in 1611.
At age 23, John Reynolds was made a Greek lecturer at Corpus Christi College. He gave himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original languages, and was an “able and successful preacher of God’s Word.” He had read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the records of the ancient church. He was known as “a living library” and “a third university” (Oxford, Cambridge, and John Reynolds!). These are a few observations of Reynolds contemporaries: “As to virtue, integrity, piety, and sanctity of life, he was so eminent and conspicuous, that to name Reynolds is to commend virtue itself.” “He alone was a well-furnished library, full of all faculties, all studies, and all learning. The memory and reading of that man were near to a miracle.” “He was most excellent in all tongues useful or ornamental to a divine. He was so well skilled in all arts and sciences, as if he had spent his whole life in each of them.”
Of the fifty-four translators, four were college presidents, six were bishops, five were deans, thirty held PhD’s, thirty-nine held Masters degrees, there were forty-one university professors, thirteen were masters of the Hebrew language, and ten had mastered Greek. E
The Superior Word – Giving Glory to God from Sarasota, Florida
He is a Trinitarian and just a cursory review of his sermons, he is laden with the Doctrine of Demons based on perverting God’s word through perverted translation; preaching another Gospel, claiming Grace while possessing no clue of the Mystery of The Church. But at the heart this Reprobate is a JUDAIZER bringing his flock back to the LAW.
Of course he must attack the King James Bible and I’m going to just open with one of his misguided teachings he has posted on his website. He insists in Matthew 1:24 that a superior translation of the greek verb diegeiro is aroused from sleep (not the King James word AWAKEN) and continues to say that it means to completely arouse. He uses a variety of perverted translations, but when we look at the King James Bible it says: AWAKEN. When we look at the meaning of arouse in the Oxford English Dictionary in the context of Joseph being startled out of a deep sleep by and angel to see supernaturally = FULLY AWAKE from the shock no doubt, it means: “the state of being awakened”
The reason this foul bird came to my attention was an email I received from some degenerate because of his hatred for the King James Bible, knowing my stance on the King James Bible being the FINAL AUTHORITY of God’s Word.
Here’s a snapshot of his attack on the King James Bible and followers of the King James Bible.
One of the most irrational and annoying cults of our time, because it is so unscholarly and so easy to disprove, is that of King James Onlyism. In the original preface to the KJV, the translators state that holding to only one version of the Bible is unwise, and they defend this rationally and objectively. However, that original preface is no longer published, and so unless you read it on-line, you would have no idea that they actually said this.
If you are a KJV-only person who wants to argue, please don’t email me. If there is ONE ERROR in translation, then it is not what you claim. There are countless errors, and it is certainly not what you claim. In fact, the KJV is a rather mediocre – even poor – translation. The number of errors in it excludes it from being a great or exceptional translation.
From time to time, I update this list as I evaluate another book of the Bible. Why do I feel this is necessary? It is because KJV-onlyism is a damnable twisting of reason, and it has led so many sound Christians down a path of bondage and bad doctrine.
If one person reads this page and realizes the error of this cult, it will be worth all the effort that I have put into it. Study! Show yourself approved! And stop listening to lies of people who are there to profit off you by selling you “their version” of the King James Version which they can print without any royalties at all. It is Public Domain, and so it is all profit to them. Don’t fund their greed any longer.
For those who are honestly seeking the truth, just check out these errors and then be pleased to join the ranks of normal, rational thinking Christians who are willing to put this nutty theology behind them, once and for all. And as a question you should ask yourself as you contemplate this cult, “Where in Scripture does God reveal that the KJV is the only acceptable translation?” If it were so, He would have clued us into this. Rather, it is a translation by man, fallible man, and it contains man’s many failings in translation.
Blessings to all in Christ the Lord.
Charlie
Charlie Mocks the printing and typo errors of the King James says the works of Shakespeare were not so:
Regarding printing errors, early printed editions of Shakespeare’s plays did indeed contain mistakes. Compositors misheard or misunderstood the text, leading to errors. However, modern editions strive to correct these issues, making the texts more reliable2.
Now, what inspired me to find this Charlie Garrett?
One of Charlie’s sycophants, Johnny from the Swamp, yes I’m not making up this name or trying to be funny… emailed me the following and attached Charlie’s 680 page attack on the King James Bible listing hundreds of insane so-called errors that can be easily debunked as I will give some examples of his claims and show the TRUTH.
Johnny from the Swamp and he quotes:
randy dont bring a knife to a theoological (sic) gun fight!
KJV only is an idol, a cult and it is the provence (sic) of mostly uneducated backwoods rednecks..trust me I know these people... you dent have the BALLS to read the attachment below and respond to me...you are uneducated..a keyboard commando wannabe/../..so I CHALLENGE you.. answer this attachment..I am a decorated combat vet, blood bought born again evangelist and you are armchair...you never fought,, you never served!! I GUARANTEE you wont answer this attachment... GUARANTEEE!!!!
My Response before Blocking him.
Matthew 7:6
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
King James Version (KJV)
2 Timothy 2:23
“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”
King James Version (KJV)
Thank you for your service Johnny.
I highly respect our combat vets. I retired with 20 years in the Navy, serving mostly in Submarine service.
I lost my highly decorated son with 3 combat missions. I never heard him talk the way you do bragging about
his combat experience.
I never heard my deceased father in law who was on Normandy and Battle of the Bulge WW 2 talk like you.
I never heard my dear friend with 2 purple hearts in Nam talk the way you do.
I never heard my father's best friend, a WW 2 Pilot in the 8th Bomber Group with missions over daylight bombing over Germany talk like you.
I never heard my best friend's deceased father in law who was a wounded Marine on Iwo Jima talk like you.
Those whom I have heard talk like you were later found to be like my neighbor down the street on so called disability who claim to be combat vets but actually never left the wire or were like the one my son had to pull out from beneath the humvee, refusing to fight after they were ambushed at the Baghdad airport.
But let’s move on from carnal things and get into the heart of the matter. Your ETERNAL SOUL.
I don't bring knives to theological gunfights, but I will bring the SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the WORD of God. King James Bible.
Now regarding your flawed theology and poor understanding of the King James Bible which is the FINAL AUTHORITY of the Word of God.
There does not exist such hatred for the PERVERTED Bibles like you support. That should say something. The reason you do not know the truth is because the TRUTH DOES NOT ABIDE in you. Read John 8:42-47 KING JAMES BIBLE.
I read through your attachment and believe it or not many, many of the points made here are worn out retreads of seminary student notes I've responded to and debunked in the past over the years. I also have an extensive study on the 1769 and why it was updated from the 1611 which I've addressed at length from some misguided reprobate seminary student. All your demerits are an ultimate condemnation and will stand as a witness and testimony against you at your judgment.
I won't bother sending my studies to you in which I have collaborated with Phd. Dr. Hinton Harvard School of Divinity and another Phd Bible student. I am educated with a Bachelor's degree and a licensed language teacher having studied English Grammar under Cambridge tutors. So I might not be as uneducated and ignorant as you claim.
The reason I'm not wasting my time sending you my studies is you won't read them and I'd love to turn Dr. Hinton, a Hebrew and Ancient Greek Linguist and King James Bible Defender to get a crack at you but we won't waste our time. I will pray that you find Jesus. The reason why you'd support a perverted bible translation like the Latin Vulgate or the LXX and all of the multitude of perverted GARDEN SALAD of Bible translations proves you and all those modern so called theologians have no idea of what Romans 8:9 KJB states.
Here is a PERFECT Example of a Reprobate False Teaching woman who claims she works with every Bible translation and the Holy Spirit tells her which translation to choose from:
The Blind led by Seducing Spirits leading the feeble minded into a Pit (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
I will be blocking you and will definitely keep your attachment as another case study of a BLIND fool professing themselves to be WISE but are FOOLS.
Good bye Johnny From The Swamp 14
I will now take the following sample of his claims and debunk them. The Lord has not given me the liberty to go through 680 pages and debunk every single claim he makes. It is essential to note that I have seen several of these false claims before and have addressed them in my Which King James Bible Translation do I recommend. Also I have selected these samples because this is the type of samples - albeit in different scripture - he uses over and over by attacking archaic words or grammar errors etc. The bottom line he vainly attempts to find CONTRADICTIONS. This honestly is the VAIN IMAGINATION from the PERVERTED HEART of the Atheist. Charlie will stand before the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT and being held to a higher standard as a false teacher for leading so many astray I tremble at the thought of what awaits him.
Charlie writes:
King James Version (KJV)
To understand the complexities of translation, a very short example of translating Genesis 1:1 will be provided just before we enter into the list of errors.
Here is the short study of Genesis 1:1 as promised above:
To understand the difficulty of accurately translating a verse from the original to English, or how an insertion for clarity could later be thought of as original, we can take a very simple sentence from the Bible, Genesis 1:1, and make a comparison of a few translations. First, the original says –
b’reshit bara Elohim eth ha’shamayim v’eth ha’arets
a direct translation would be –
“In beginning created Elohim the heavens and the earth.
Note that the two uses of eth in the Hebrew are not translatable. Rather, the word is an untranslatable mark of the accusative case, being generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition.
My Response: As Charlie does throughout his 680 page diatribe of fabricated lies, he continually refers to “ORIGINAL”. His source document comes from the perverted manuscripts of the codex b and s Vaticanus and Sinaticus - the same as was used in the LXX. See my links above referring to these perverted manuscripts from Alexandria that have the most errors of any.
The evil Charlie presents throughout is as follows:
Look at this terrible error in the King James Bible. We will compare it with a perverted manuscript to prove it.
Honestly, I don’t know how to make this more simple for someone to follow along with me here, but this is the same way a person would teach a child that a Zebra is an Elephant by showing a child a picture of an Elephant and teach them it is a Zebra.
Charlie like all false teachers us the STRAWMAN Argument with great skill in their CRAFT. See this astounding study as an example:
H Any time I see the red flag of a false teacher referring to the key words in Hebrew of “not translatable” and untranslatable “mark”. My antenna goes up.
My friend Dr John Hinton Masters Degree in Linguistics in ancient Hebrew and Greek from Harvard University and Dr. Riplinger (See note below in link) have gone through the way false teachers misquote and misuse the Hebrew ‘marker’ mostly the vowel markers. I am not a linguist or Hebrew Scholar but reading Charlie’s comment I as a licensed language teacher know from personal study that the object of a verb or preposition in the context of this false accusation is a SMOKE SCREEN of smoke and mirrors. This grammar call out has no bearing on his claim.
Quote from Dr. Hinton:
Who is Yahweh? - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections (av1611.com)
It is amazing to see this being done by people who claim to honor the Bible. Dr. G.A. Riplinger, in her tome, In Awe of His Word, points out that ignoring the vowel marks in the Hebrew allow Jews and atheists to remove future references to our Saviour from the Old Testament by toying with these vowels. [Riplinger, pp. 433-434].
A few translations of this verse are –
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
In the beginning, God created the universe. (ISV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (NIV)
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. (Douay-Rheims)
In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth, (LSV)
In the beginning God (Elohim) created [by forming from nothing] the heavens and the earth. (Amplified)
In the beginning God formed the heavens and the earth. (SLT)
These are but a few of the variations of this verse. Notice how the KJV says “heaven” instead of “heavens.” Later, they will translate the exact same word as “the air” (Genesis 1:26, etc.), “the heavens” (Genesis 2:1, etc.), or some other variant. Being a plural word, their translation is wrong in Genesis 1:1. Further, the word “the” before beginning is not in the Hebrew and should be italicized as is normal with that translation for inserted words.
Genesis 1:1 –
The KJV translates ha’shamayim (literally, the heavens) in the singular (the heaven).
They then translate the exact same phrase in the plural in Genesis 2:1, 2:4, etc. There is an annoying lack of consistency in this. 1 demerit for each inconsistency in the rest of the Bible.
My comment: This is beyond insane. A 3rd Grade Grammar student understands how verbs change depending on context. This argument on HEAVEN/HEAVENS is a very old worn out argument used by Atheists over and over. I’m sure that Charlie got a lot of his ammunition from Atheist websites and forums. WICKED!
In Genesis 1:1 shamayim H8064 as either HEAVEN OR HEAVENS depending on the context. Even the perverted, corrupted translations use the same word both singular and plural. I am speechless. THIS IS PROOF that shows those who follow this WICKED MAN are BLIND FOOLS. This is a blind guide leading others into a PIT.
Note: For understanding why Genesis 1:1 is singular HEAVEN and why Genesis 2:1, 2:4 are plural, note that Heaven in Genesis 1:1 refers to EARTH and its atmosphere, sky, space. The context is regarding EARTH whereas Genesis 2:1, 2:4 is referring to the vast heavens of the UNIVERSE. The proof is Genesis 2:1 referring to all their HOSTS and in Genesis 2:4 referring to them plural, most likely a vast number of solar systems in the universe. In 2 Corinthians 12:2 Paul distinguishes multiple heavens (1st, 2nd 3rd heaven which means the 1st heaven would be our atmosphere, the 2nd Space, the 3rd God’s abode)
Here is a quote from
11
Actually, in Hebrew, nouns have three forms of number - singular, dual and plural. English only has singular and plural. [Side note: classical Greek had singular, dual and plural but by the time of the NT Koine Greek, it only had singular and plural.]
The word in Hebrew for "heavens" in Gen 1:1, as in all places throughout the OT, is the dual form, הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם (shamayim), literally "two heavens". [It never occurs in the singular form.] This noun can refer to any of the following:
the atmosphere or air where birds fly, Gen 1:20, 2:19, Deut 4:17, etc.
the starry heavens, Gen 15:5, Deut 4:19, etc.
the abode of God, 1 Kings 8:30, Ps 2:4, etc.
Regarding why Genesis 1:26 uses air is to emphasize birds flying in our atmosphere - the sky above us that observe. This also points to where birds travel when flight to limit and distinguish their flight path as distinct from outer space. The use of air in this context is consistent throughout the entire King James Bible. See Matthew 6:26 as an example.
The word elohim at times means “gods” as in something other than the true God. Thus, the Amplified Bible both translates the word and also includes it in parenthesis for clarity. It also explains the meaning of the word bara as an act of creation ex nihilo.
My Response: The entire study of Eloheim being plural explains the Godhead whereby the Singular from Plural. See Godhead vs Trinity Studies:
By looking over the differences in such translations, one can learn quite a bit about what is going on in the minds of the translators. But remember, this is a very simple sentence. Imagine how varied translations can be in longer or more complicated verses! Don’t rush into judging translations until you have actually studied and thought through what is going on.
A good example of the failure to give the flavor of what is being conveyed is found in this verse from the KJV –
“And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus.” Acts 20:15
There are five significant errors in this translation. But ignoring them directly, we can refer to the words of Vincent’s Word Studies, “The A.V., [meaning the King James Version] which often gives a varied English for the same Greek, has here for varying Greek given the same English [next] three times over.”
A more suitable translation to get the richness of the verse would be, “And thence having sailed the following day, we arrived opposite Chios. And the other day, we cast-aside at Samos, and having remained in Trogyllium, the adjoining day we came to Miletus” (CG).
Study to show yourself approved. Don’t be duped into the incredibly inane thinking that the KJV is anywhere near even a “good” translation. It is not. As noted, it is marginal at best.
My comment: The profound ignorance of this man is astounding. He tells us there are no less than 5 errors but does not list them. He then displays his full arrogance and ignorance by telling us the “against” means opposite (because that is what his perverted bible translations tell him and the Greek Lexicon Strongs G481 lists over against as the first option most likely because this is only listed one time in the new Testament.
This confounded lad needs extensive training in basic English Grammar, Basic Bible Hermeneutics, specifically how to understand the contextual meaning of a word and its applied VOCABULARY. This would also be in addition to his lack of harmonizing scripture as I will show the entire process below.
When we examine the contextual meaning and the meaning of the Oxford English Dictionary we clearly see it means “contrary to” or “In the opposite DIRECTION to the course of” In sailing terminology against the wind. During the time of the apostles, especially the missions of Paul by way of the Mediterranean Sea Sail power relied heavily on the prevailing winds, shadowing from coastal sailing and of course currents, tides and storms. We see the severe example in Acts 27 of Paul’s shipwreck in storm.
As a sailor myself for several years this is a sailor’s worst tact meaning beating into the wind verse on a beam's reach to have the wind pushing you or at least running with the wind, into the wind is the slowest and requires more work beating or tacking repeatedly. In the Oxford English dictionary page 44 we have the following listing: In 1383 the term against is used: into the wynde (wind). Shakespeare used against in his work 1593 Henry VI 20 quote: “I have seene a swan with bootlese labour swimme against the tyde. This refers to Shakespears account of the war of the Roses translated: I have seen a swan without boots labor in its swim against the tide. We see the same application of going against a force which is exactly what is written in the contextual meaning of Acts 20:15.
Here also in paragraph 9, page 44 of the Oxford English Compact Dictionary we find in 1388 that Wycliff quoted Acts 27:15 Against the Wind. Against here in the Greek Strongs G471 is the root for both G503 in Acts 27:15 as well as G481 in Acts 20:15 “Whanne the Schip was rauyschid and myzte not agens the wynde Wycliff Acts 27:15 1388
Note from Middle English to Early Modern English of 1611:
The phrase “Whanne the Schip was rauyschid and myzte not agens the wynde” is from Middle English and appears in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, specifically in Acts 27:15. Let’s break it down:
Whanne the Schip was rauyschid: This means when the ship was caught or seized by external forces (such as wind or waves). The ship encountered a challenging situation.
and myzte not agens the wynde: Here, “myzte” means could not. The ship was unable to sail against the wind or make headway into the wind. Instead, it was driven by the wind’s force.
In modern English, Acts 27:15 (KJV) reads: “And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive.” The ship’s crew had no choice but to allow the wind to carry them.
Usage:
In the New Testament, it appears in passages like Mark 11:2, Mark 12:41, Mark 13:3, and Matthew 21:2. For instance, in Luke 19:30, Jesus instructs his disciples to go into a village “over against” them, where they will find a colt tied.
Antikru (ἀντικρύ):
Definition: Antikru is another Greek adverb. It combines “anti” (meaning “against” or “contrary to”) with “katabole” (meaning “foundation” or “creation”).
Meaning: Antikru conveys the concept of something that is opposed to the foundation or creation of the world.
In summary, katenanti emphasizes direct opposition or being directly opposite, while antikru suggests opposition
———————————————————
Note: The KJV fails to use quotation marks, making the text obscure and even difficult at times. It is good that modern translations have corrected this translational problem.
My Response: The quotation mark SHAM is a worn out trick. See my study on Which King James Bible Translation I use.
Also, before adventuring into the list, here are a few examples of actual translational errors that will help you to understand how bad this translation actually is. Three will be given. The first is from Deuteronomy 8:9 –
A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.
One cannot “dig brass” out of hills where it doesn’t exist. Other than an infinitesimal amount of mineral brass found in Siberia, brass is an alloy produced by man. One digs copper out of hills. 1 demerit.
Deuteronomy 8:9
“A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.”
My response:
The Hebrew Word for Brass H5178 literally means in the context of Deuteronomy 8:9 BRONZE as a “COPPER ALLOY”. Instead of writing out Bronze from a Copper Alloy, Bronze is completely acceptable as stated. Also in just superficial research it is found that in Hebrew writings the final product is discussed as ultimately coming from the ground. Additional notes:
In Hebrew, the word “nehoshet” (נְחֹשֶׁת) is used in the biblical text to describe both the element copper and two of its alloys: bronze and brass. Unlike some other ancient languages, Biblical Hebrew does not distinguish between pure copper and copper alloys; it simply uses “nehoshet” for all of them. Therefore, when interpreting the Bible, whether “nehoshet” refers to bronze, brass, or copper depends on the context12.
Interestingly, archaeological evidence confirms that during the period when the exodus may have occurred, there was advanced copper mining and production in Timna (just north of the Gulf of Aqaba). This collaboration involved the Midianites, Egyptians, and Amalekites. So, the mention of “brass” in the Bible could indeed refer to an alloy produced through mining and metallurgy3
The next is from Deuteronomy 33:17 –
The word “unicorns” is decidedly incorrect. First, there are no such things. But even if the old English word speaks of a rhino or something else with one horn, the Hebrew word is singular – “unicorn.” And so, no matter what, the translation is wrong because a unicorn has only one horn. Therefore, this is another of the innumerable errors found in the translation. It is just a ridiculously funny one.
The last is one that forms a contradiction in Scripture between Exodus and Hebrews –
Deuteronomy 33:17
“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”
King James Version (KJV)
This is the quintessential example of seeking evil. In the recent study I have posted by Brother Cameron Moshfegh, when searching for the “WHAT” in scripture when “the what is it” is not disclosed in scripture, this leads to evil. See study link:
Calling out Unicorn in the King James Bible is an old worn out attack. But when researching this word in depth from the Hebrew word Reeym H7214 is probably the great aurochs or wild bulls. However when going deeper we find the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon 1450 page 262 it means: “AN UNKNOWN ANIMAL. Possibly from its height.
To become preoccupied by an unknown animal called a Unicorn can lead into useless strife as written in 2 Timothy 2:23 KJB.
It is interesting to note to prove these REPROBATES as FOOLS, regarding their mockery of the King James Bible, There is archeological evidence that a "unicorn" (actually a species of giant rhino called Elasmotherium, meaning "thin plate beast" and with that characteristic single horn jutting from its head) existed has been around for decades, and new research published in the American Journal of Applied Sciences indicates that they were around until fairly recently in human history, although they were probably less limpid-eyed and graceful and more huge and formidable than the mythos would have you believe:
'Unicorns' Existed Alongside Early Modern Humans? | Snopes.com
See additional studies on
The Unicorn Myth - World History Encyclopedia
Unicorns did exist – but they were probably rhinos, not horses (cosmosmagazine.com)
What is the Septuagint? | GotQuestions.org
Charlie’s love for the Septuagint is the absolute proof of his apostate theological training. Although he didn’t attend a mainstream Theological Seminary of a Master’s Degree as I know my family member did and their experiences of learning and leaning on the NASB and other perverted translations and their use of the Septuagint LXX and Latin Vulgate, Charlie was still tainted nonetheless.
Brief background on the Septuagint (also known as the LXX) from one of its supporters Matt Slick of Got Questions:
LIES FROM THE PITS OF HELL: The fact they admit Jewish scholars were the Translators is PROOF OF THEIR LIES.
It is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. The name Septuagint comes from the Latin word for “seventy.” The tradition is that 70 (or 72) Jewish scholars were the translators behind the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated in the third and second centuries BC in Alexandria, Egypt. As Israel was under the authority of Greece for several centuries, the Greek language became more and more common. By the second and first centuries BC, most people in Israel spoke Greek as their primary language. That is why the effort was made to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek—so that those who did not understand Hebrew could have the Scriptures in a language they could understand. The Septuagint represents the first major effort at translating a significant religious text from one language into another.
In comparing the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that the Septuagint was often used. Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint. This is the result of the fact that by the late first century BC, and especially the first century AD, the Septuagint had “replaced” the Hebrew Bible as the Scriptures most people used. Since most people spoke and read Greek as their primary language, and the Greek authorities strongly encouraged the use of Greek, the Septuagint became much more common than the Hebrew Old Testament.
As faithful as the Septuagint translators strove to be in accurately rendering the Hebrew text into Greek, some translational differences arose. But the fact that the apostles and New Testament authors felt comfortable, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in using the Septuagint should give us assurance that a translation of the original languages of the Bible is still the authoritative Word of God.
The conclusion after the 568 pages of listing supposed ERRORS.
Humorous relief right from the ORIGINAL PREFACE to the KJV
Opening statement of the attachment:
The opening of the attachment:
Dr. Charlie Garett: This is a list of translational errors that are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre, even very sloppy, translation of Scripture, certainly not the only inspired translation of Scripture.
Why would anyone bother with compiling such a list? The reason is that adherents to King James Onlyism have come to substitute what the Bible says with the King James Bible itself. The book becomes the object of their idolatry. This may sound laughable, but there is an entire cult built around the King James Version of the Bible. Other cults do the same with other texts, such as the Latin Vulgate or the Greek Septuagint.
The error in this thinking stems from a misunderstanding of how the word of God is transmitted. God has allowed man to copy and pass on His original word. God is not fallible and the word He originally breathed out is perfect because it comes from Him.
However, man is fallible. Anytime man is involved in something such as this, a process of corruption will result because of man’s inability to maintain the perfection of the original.
We cannot reasonably look at such differences in texts and say, “This cannot be the word of God.” Rather, we can look at the whole and feel confident that it is the word of God, but that man has been graciously allowed to transmit it, causing contamination of it. And yet, God has preserved His word in a sure enough form that it still can be rightly considered His word.
It is certain that if a copy of a manuscript of Shakespeare’s work was found and it had spelling errors, transpositions, margin notes, missing words or sentences, etc., anyone who evaluated it would say, “This is a copy of Shakespeare’s work.” In fact, it would be ridiculous to say otherwise.
And yet, naysayers of the Bible demand perfection of transmission to be a part of the process of conveying His word. If such perfection does not exist (which it could not because of the nature of man), then to them it somehow cannot be God’s word. The thinking is biased and flawed.
This is the trap that too many Christians have fallen into, thus believing that God has somehow preserved His word in an exacting manner that is 100% infallible in one particular version or another. They then choose a version, claim that the version they have chosen is God’s only infallible word, and condemn all others as being of the devil. This leads to a cult-like mentality and very poor theology.
But this claim has been made time and again over various versions in various languages. Rather than look at the matter from this viewpoint, we should look at the massive number of texts available as a blessing by which comparisons can be made to weed out obvious errors that have entered the various texts. This is responsible and it is certainly what God intended so that His word would be safely transmitted in a form that carries with it the essential information we need to share with others.
As for what is behind the push for KJV onlyism, what is the reason that various groups have done this? The answer is rather simple, the KJV is public domain. Other than printing costs, which are almost nothing, there is no additional cost to print a KJV Bible.
So… convince people that the KJV is the only Bible to be used. Sell several million copies a year at total profit minus printing and you are talking about 10s or 100s of millions of dollars, with no effort at all. Once you have people duped into believing this nonsense, you have a captive audience and a constant stream of cash coming in. Vile.
I started compiling these KJV errors after having completed many book studies, and so the innumerable errors in their translation for those books are not included for the most part. As for this list, these errors are based on the same source texts used by the KJV translators, so we are dealing apples with apples. For more comments on this rather poor translation, go to the end of this ever-increasingly long list.
The lack of care the translators of the KJV gave to the original manuscripts is often maddening. But what is more maddening is that people, without even checking, blindly believe the lie that the KJV is somehow a perfect rendering of God’s word. It is not. In fact, it is a poor rendering of it.
Also, as a fun poke at KJV onlyism, there is a copy of the ORIGINAL PREFACE to the KJV which is still readily available online. It refutes pretty much every one of their crazy arguments. Imagine that. Scroll down to the bottom of this post and enjoy my thoughts on it. As I note there, even the original preface to the KJV dispels every KJV only myth that is claimed today. A careful read through it will alert the student of the Bible to this – http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/kjvpreface.htm
My comment:
One of the most outrageous accusations against the King James Bible Translation ONLY believers is them using the Original 1611 PreFace against us by claiming the translators admitted all translations even with flaws are God’s word. They have cherry picked phrases from the Preface and have taken them completely out of context. They overlook paragraph six on why translations were necessary and the imputations of the adversaries and the third Cavils paragraphs 13 and 14 (attacks against the King James Translation.
Psychologists know that taking information OUT OF CONTEXT is more insidious than outright lies. Here is a quote from a psychologist and how deceptive it is.
But what if taking things out of context is actually more insidious than outright lies?
…when we take things out of context often the majority of what is expressed is actually true, apart from a few ‘minor’ details. And this is why it is far more cunning, deceptive, manipulative and in fact abusive to take things out of context. For it is much more difficult for the listener to recognise that what is being expressed is actually not true, because in many cases it is very close to what the truth is or represents– but due to the distortion it now contains no truth whatsoever. Hence it is a far more sophisticated version of lying.
And because most of what is expressed is likely to be true, this is often the justification used by those who choose to distort truth in this way.
Only the Feeble minded would fall into this TRAP. In 1611 These Translators were speaking of the Tyndale Translation, the Geneva Bible, and Bishop’s Bible WHICH WERE ALL From the Textus Receptus and not from the perverted Manuscripts of today’s perverted Translations.
The Translators of the King James Bible (fundamentalholybible.com) Quote:
At the Hampton Court Conference, convened by King James I in 1603, John Reynolds, the head of the Puritan Church in England, proposed a new English translation of the Scriptures that would unite the churches and the people of England. Reynold’s goal was one universal authority or standard for all English-speaking Christians. There was division and strife between the churches and the people over the two primary English translations of the time the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva translation. The Bishops’ Bible, published in 1568 by leaders in the Church of England by the authority of Queen Elizabeth, was the official Bible for usage in the churches. The Geneva Bible, produced in 1560 by exiled Protestant leaders in Geneva, Switzerland, had been adopted and embraced as the beloved Bible of the common people. Although both translations were made from the same textual foundation the Textus Receptus Greek and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew in many places the English renderings differed, resulting in strife and confusion between pulpit and pew. King James received Reynold’s proposal gladly, and was anxious for work on a new English Bible translation to begin.
During their examination of the SEPTUAGINT the King James translators did examine and compare with the Textus Receptus although noted its errors and inconsistency questionable acceptance. Nevertheless they did examine and of course were thoroughly familiar with and even admitted the apostles used it according to the Preface of the 1611 King James Bible.
THE ORIGINAL PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION 1611 (jesus-is-savior.com)
[The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek.]
Quote Preface: Regarding the Translation of the 70 (LXX aka Septuagint)
8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men?
• 9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.
10 This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current.
• 11 Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews.
• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.
• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
• 14 Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) [Epiphan. de mensur, et ponderibus.] but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. [See S.August. 2°. de doctrin, Christian. c. 15° Novell, diatax, 146.]
• 15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace. [profhtikhV wsper caritoV perilamyashV autouV.]
• 16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
• 17 This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.
• 16 Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did; if that be true which is reported of them that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S.Hierome, [S.Hieron. ad Pammac. pro libr. advers. Jovinian.] if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it:
• 8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men?
• 9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.
• 10 This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current.
• 11 Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews.
• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.
• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
• 14 Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) [Epiphan. de mensur, et ponderibus.] but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. [See S.August. 2°. de doctrin, Christian. c. 15° Novell, diatax, 146.]
• 15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace. [profhtikhV wsper caritoV perilamyashV autouV.]
• 16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
• 17 This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.
• 7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.
Regarding the Septuagint Historical Significance:
Language Insights:
The LXX provided insights into Greek language usage during the time of its translation (around 3rd century BCE).
The KJV translators considered linguistic nuances and adapted their translation accordingly.
Comparative Study:
By comparing the LXX with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the KJV translators aimed for a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures.
They sought to create a faithful and accessible English version.
In summary, the KJV translators acknowledged the Septuagint as a valuable resource, even though their primary source was the Hebrew text.
Quote from Dr. Gipp:
17. Who was the KJV Bible translated for? – Samuel C. Gipp Th.D. (samgipp.com)
In history this has been done several times. When the Roman Catholic Church saw the popularity and the threat of the Old Latin Bible (called the Vulgate from the Latin “vulgar” meaning “common”) of 150 AD they had their own Latin Bible translated from manuscripts which had been corrupted in Alexandria, Egypt. This work was foisted upon a reluctant Roman Catholic scholar by the name of Jerome and upon publication in 380 AD was promptly and shamelessly entitled “The Vulgate”. This worthless book sat unused for 800 years until the Roman Catholic Church “eliminated the competition” by burning all of the original (good) Vulgates along with their owners. This, of course, ushered in the Dark Ages, a time of unsurpassed power for the Roman Catholic Church. To this day, most people upon hearing acclaim for the Latin Vulgate (the good one, 150 AD) erroneously attribute it to the usurping Roman Catholic Vulgate of 380 AD.
Most new English translations available today are from these same corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts. In the hands of the common man, these bibles do nothing. They are perfectly safe to “the powers that be”.
King James, whether he knew it or not, gave the common man back his most valued possession, the true Bible in English. (The Roman Catholic Church had translated its own English Bible in 1582 in Rheims, France. It was worthless.) King James and his translating committee may have never expected their new translation to go any farther than the shores of England. But God and the common man saw fit to carry it around the globe.
Today the common man is in grave danger of having his perfect Bible stolen from him again. This is being accomplished by two methods.
First, an attempt is being made (and has been underway for almost 100 years) to physically replace the King James Bible with bibles translated from corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts. These books are powerless and worthless, perfect for the job. Sadly, the King James Bible is being attacked by many saved, fundamental teachers and preachers who really may be well intentioned, but who do enjoy the feeling of authority (Roman Catholic, pope-like authority) and power that being able to “correct” the Bible brings them. This all important transition is taking place in both churches and Bible colleges. (“Bible-believing” Bible colleges at that.)
The second area of conquest is the very brain of the common man, and it also is carried out in two phases.
The first is the “suppressive phase” in which the victim is bombarded with so much anti-King James propaganda that he is spiritually suppressed from mentally accepting the true, perfect Bible. This method robs his brain of the Bible even though his hand may possess it. In other words, his Bible has been stolen from his brain but not taken from him physically. (Yet!)
The second phase is the “brain washing phase.” This is carried out by preachers, teachers and especially the “Christian ” media. Christian radio stations have almost universally desisted from using the King James Bible. They have “Bible readings”, daily memory verses, and even read the Christmas story in Luke 2 from any bible but the King James. This robs the subconscious mind of the true Bible. For you see, many Bible rejecting preachers, upon trying to preach from a new version are confronted by some “unlearned and ignorant” (Acts 4:13) church member who, though unable to argue down the pastor’s sales pitch concerning the new translation, retorts with, “But that just doesn’t ‘sound’ like the Bible.”
By constantly hearing other versions read over radio, TV or in Christian schools the younger generation of Christians will never have the benefit of subconsciously knowing what “The Bible” sounds like.
So we see that the real enemy of the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic totalitarian spirit found among some fundamentalists is NOT just the Bible. It is the Bible in the hand and heart of the common man. The same person that the devil hates and hopes to fill Hell with.
The Septuagint LIES
The letter of Aristeas
The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates is a Hellenistic work of the 3rd or early 2nd century BC, considered by some Biblical scholars to be pseudepigraphical.
David Daniels
See more details in notes of the Lies and Deception of the Septuagint:
https://youtu.be/KNPaPX9mLAc?si=5GHWxA2fKSKVKRW7
5:32
Something doesn't add up.
5:35
Again, who is Aristeas? I used a Greek minor deity
5:40
called Aristeas, because it doesn't actually exist,
5:44
and I think Aristeas didn't actually exist, either.
5:51
Both Thackeray and many Jewish writers I have read,
5:55
have agreed that the Letter of Aristeas is
5:58
"Jewish propaganda under a heathen mask."
6:02
In other words, whoever wrote
6:04
the Letter of Aristeas was a Jewish person,
6:08
not Greek.
6:11
I've been chipping away at the Letter all through these vlogs,
6:14
and as you may have noticed. So let me say,
6:18
I believe the Letter of Aristeas is a complete fabrication,
6:23
a fraud, a fiction, and it doesn't even have
6:28
a grain of truth.
6:31
If I'm right, who could have written it?
6:34
I'll answer that after we tackle
6:36
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
6:38
Ever since scrolls and 17,000 bits of scrolls
6:41
were found in caves near the Dead Sea starting in 1946,
6:45
people have been looking for evidence of ancient Bibles.
6:49
They have found some astounding things,
6:51
like scrolls that are virtually identical with the Leningrad Hebrew Codex
6:55
I showed you and other Masoretic Texts.
6:58
But some people have been desperate
7:01
to find a BC Septuagint. Take a look at this:
7:06
This is a Nahal Hever Greek text,
7:09
found in a cave near Hebron. It has Micah 5:4-6
7:15
on the right side.
7:17
I decided to take a digital text of
7:21
the Nahal Hever Greek, and compare it to
7:24
what we call the Septuagint. I really gave it
7:27
the benefit of the doubt. When it had only part of a word right,
7:31
I granted those letters. It looks like this.
7:35
The yellow is what is the same. It's not the same text.
7:40
Lots of different word choices. It's a translation
7:44
of the Hebrew, alright, but the Greek
7:46
is very different from what we call the Septuagint.
7:50
So just because people tell you
7:52
the Dead Sea Scrolls have Greek, doesn't mean they're Septuagint.
7:59
That said, there are some fragments of texts
8:02
which do match what we call the Septuagint.
8:06
Carsten Peter Thiede, author of "The Jesus Papyrus,"
8:14
wrote in another of his books, "Rekindling the Word,"
8:18
that there are six fragments with a few words
8:24
that match what we call the Septuagint.
8:29
Just six of them are "reliably identified."
8:35
But he says, all the "Greek fragments
8:40
can be dated to the period from the middle of the 1st century BC
8:43
to the middle of the 1st century AD." This means that
8:48
Even these "Greek texts are the most recent of all
8:52
manuscripts found in Qumran."
8:56
So after all this investigation across centuries,
9:02
all the scholars and all the investigation,
9:06
and we end up with the oldest Greek words
9:08
on a piece of papyrus or leather are only reliably dated
9:13
to the 1st century, at the time before 68 AD
9:15
when the Romans came through Israel?
9:20
That does it. I cannot believe in a BC Septuagint.
9:25
But I can and do believe there was something made
9:29
in the 1st century AD.
9:32
But let's remember what this means.
9:35
1. If there is no BC Septuagint, there is no acceptance
9:41
of a BC Greek text. That means the Hebrew speaking
9:46
Hebrew synagogues in Israel used ...
9:48
surprise! Hebrew!
9:51
2. If they used Hebrew in Israel -- and even the writers in Alexandria
9:56
including Origen admit this freely -- then there is no way
10:01
that Jesus or the apostles could have quoted the Septuagint.
10:07
That means they did not quote or reference
10:10
a Greek Apocrypha, either. Only the Septuagint
10:15
had the Apocrypha, not the Hebrew,
10:16
as even Origen and Jerome both admitted.
10:21
3. If there is no way that Jesus or the apostles
10:25
could have quoted the Septuagint, then how did words
10:28
similar to Jesus' and the apostles' end up in
10:31
an Old Testament Greek text?
10:34
Simple. Whatever Greek texts
10:37
were made in the first century were modified later,
10:40
by people who had the New Testament
10:43
sitting in front of them!
10:46
So the Greek Old Testament was made during or after
10:50
the life of Jesus. Even if it came out,
10:54
in Alexandria, by that late date,
10:57
do you really think the Hebrew-using Hebrews
11:00
would abandon the Hebrew for an untested Greek
11:03
that was so different from the Hebrew,
11:05
as everyone admits?
11:07
No way.
11:09
So Jesus and the apostles not only did not quote the Septuagint.
11:19
They did not use it, either.
11:21
So who DID create the Septuagint? And when?
11:25
I can only go by the information that history has allowed us.
11:28
One guy had motive. He wanted to make
11:32
the Hebrew Old Testament something he could play with,
11:35
to make allegories and analogies, and to compare
11:37
with Greek philosophy. For that,
11:40
he wanted and felt he needed a Greek Old Testament.
11:43
2. One guy had means. He was born wealthy.
11:48
His family was contemporary with the Ptolemaic dynasty.
11:50
He had both social and family connections
11:53
to the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties,
11:57
and even the Julius-Claudius dynasty in Rome.
12:00
He was educated in Roman, Greek and Egyptian culture,
12:03
and in Judaism, especially.
12:07
3. And one guy had opportunity. He had access to the priests
12:11
in Jerusalem. He could go back and forth
12:14
as he pleased. He had visited the Temple
12:16
in Jerusalem at least once. He was a representative of
12:19
the Alexandrian Jewish community. And he seems he had
12:23
plenty of time to pull it off.
12:26
That man is Philo of Alexandria. He had motive, means,
12:32
and opportunity. If he did it,
12:35
then he completed it before he passed away
12:37
about 50 AD. The story would spread,
12:40
because of his influence. Who would question him?
12:44
Then the Letter would spread all over,
12:47
to support his Greek Old Testament with Apocryphal stories
12:50
that the Alexandrians liked, all in one book.
12:56
He could have afforded to pay for the people to do the work.
13:00
And there is ample time after that for Josephus, then Aquila,
13:04
Symmachus and Theodotion to do their own work.
13:07
And there is plenty of time for the Alexandrian religious people
13:09
to mess with that Greek. I'll stop there.
13:15
But we don't have to worry if there is no BC Septuagint.
13:19
We have God's words, preserved from
13:22
the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament,
13:26
passed down and translated accurately,
13:29
all the way down to our King James Bible,
13:33
God's preserved words in one book for us,
13:36
in one language.
13:39
Now think about this. If there is no BC Septuagint,
13:48
if this Greek Septuagint with Apocrypha
13:50
isn't God's work, then you can bet
13:55
the Devil is involved.
1851 and 1935 updated in 2006 All based on the perverted manuscripts Vaticanus Sinaticus
The Lie of the Apostles and Jesus using the Septuagint
The Truth: The Septuagint is the basis of the Latin Vulgate
QUESTION: What is the LXX?
ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.
EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.
This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.
When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.
Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.
Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurdles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".
If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each? Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
(2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.
Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.
But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."
If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!
The PREFACE OF THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE
Written to the readers by the translators of the King James Version. Know why they desired to translate the "originals" into English based upon their own testimonies and convictions on the issue of the Bible.
KJV critics take 'snipits' out of this document to misrepresent the beliefs of the KJV translators. Seeing the work in its entirety proves that they believed that it was the final English Bible. They also denounced the omissions now seen in modern bibles, then extant in what they called faulty the Septuagint and Catholic bibles.
Dr Miles Smith
Note: I am sure I have errors in my comments on this page – spelling, punctuation, numerical, and etc. One might point out the irony of me highlighting errors in the KJV while having my own errors, but I am not interested in dotting every t or crossing every i (wait, reverse that). Rather, I am not claiming my list is somehow the only inspired list given by God. I am giving information to be considered for those who honestly want to know if this version is what the cult of “King James Onlyism” claims. Even a short study will show it is not.
THE ORIGINAL PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION 1611 (jesus-is-savior.com)
The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.
Many in the KJV Only crowd deny that the Septuagint (the translation of the Seventy) even exists. They claim it was a later invention of the Catholic Church. And yet, the translators of the King James Version not only acknowledge it exists, but that it existed in the very hands of the Apostles, and that further, it is worthy of the appellation and name of the word of God! KJV Only crowd – zero; Reason – one.
Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.] Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to
be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, pub- lished another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means.
The finger of the translators not only points back in time to those who accuse translators of various Translations of being in bed with Satan, but they point forward to the KJV Only crowd who make exactly the same claims. Further, they make it quite clear that the Lovaine and Hentenius, as well as the Paris edition are all authoritative. Further, the Bible published by Sixtus and that by Clement are also of equal authority – and that had “infinite differences” from the translation of Sixtus. Oh, also the Latin too (almost forgot that – I think I’m hearing strange music in the background.) KJV Only crowd – zero; Reason – two, three, four, five, six, and seven (oh, and eight.)
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by con- ference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearful- ness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case alto- gether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.”
You can’t mean that! Do you mean to say that the translators of the King James Version believed that God had scattered words and sentences of difficulty and doubtfulness (meaning they are not sure of the exact translation, even in their own translation) here and there and that, because these are in no way related to doctrinal points concerning salvation that it wasn’t of the highest moment! They actually went to Saint Augustine to make their point sure… The Latin is a cool touch. Hey! Quit striving over minutiae. KJV Only – zero; Reason – nine.
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
I…I don’t know what to say! Words have been far removed from my lips…my thoughts are awhirl. They agree…the King James Version Translation committee agrees that a variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures! And not only that, but that marginal notes for those “no so clear” areas are not only a little ok, but they “must needs do good” and are …. necessary! Woo hoo. KJV Only -zero; Reason and common sense – at least 50 points there.
They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
I can’t contain myself! I’m stunned. It’s amazing. The wise! Let me spell it – W I S E. The wise should use varied translations. That means the unwise – that’s spelled U N W I S E are captivated by one because they don’t have the other (correct one.) KJV Only – minus 50; Reason – well over 150.
For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?
Commodiously – that’s a big word! They call the sticking to single words that may have alternative meanings bondage. KJV Only – minus 50; Reason’s at like 265 by now.
Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be super- stitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.
Trifling… I like that word. I think of walking through a field of flowers, or a nice warm swim in the ocean when I think of trifling. I don’t know why. Let’s see – they say God uses divers words in His holy Writ to make a point and that we should feel free to do the same via multiple translations in the English language. KJV Only – seriously in the hole; Reason – wins out again.
You see, we don’t need to go beyond the introduction to the King James Version itself to see the nuttiness of the King James Only argument. Who would know better than the translators themselves of the appropriateness of varied translations using varied source texts.
The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.
Many KJV only advocates deny the Septuagint (the translation of the Seventy) even exists. They claim it was a later invention of the Catholic Church. And yet, the translators of the King James Version not only acknowledge it exists, but that it existed in the very hands of the Apostles, and that further, it is worthy of the appellation and name of the word of God!
Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.] Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, pub- lished another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means.
The finger of the translators not only points back in time to those who accuse translators of various Translations of being in bed with Satan, but they point forward to the KJV Only crowd who make exactly the same claims. Further, they make it quite clear that the Lovaine and Hentenius, as well as the Paris edition are all authoritative. Further, the Bible published by Sixtus and that by Clement are also of equal authority – and that had “infinite differences” from the translation of Sixtus and that of the Latin
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by con- ference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearful- ness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case alto- gether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.”
The translators of the King James Version believed that God had scattered words and sentences of difficulty and doubtfulness (meaning they are not sure of the exact translation, even in their own translation) here and there and that, because these are in no way related to doctrinal points concerning salvation that it wasn’t of the highest moment! They quote of Saint Augustine makes their point sure.
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
The King James Version Translation committee agrees that a variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. And not only that, but that marginal notes for those “no so clear” areas are not only a little ok, but they “must needs do good” and are …. necessary!
They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differ- ences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
According to the translators, the wise should use varied translations. The converse then would show a lack of scholarship by those captivated by one translation.
For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commo-diously?
The translators call the sticking to single words that may have alternative meanings bondage.
Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be super- stitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.
The translators say God uses divers words in His holy Writ to make a point and that we should feel free to do the same via multiple translations in the English language.
My Comment: This Reprobate 1. Has taken the Preface comments out of context. 2. Does not tell his readers that they were speaking this 250 years BEFORE The PERVERTED TRANSLATIONS exploded on the scene after HORT and WESCOTT 1880s, the 2 VATICAN PUPPETS from Cambridge University.
————————————————————-
A little logic for you to consider if you are KJV Only:
Which KJV do YOU use? The OFFICIAL 1611 or the 1769 Blaney edition?
Furthermore, do you use the Cambridge edition or the Oxford edition?
If the Cambridge edition, which ONE?
1629: Cambridge KJB
1638: Cambridge KJB
1760: Cambridge KJB
1769: Oxford KJB (This is the Benjamin Blayney edition)
1873: Cambridge Paragraph KJB
1900: Cambridge KJB (aka, “Pure Cambridge Edition”)
According to your dogma, you can only use ONE. Therefore, which ONE?
John 3:16 in the original 1611 King James Bible reads,
“¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”
If you open your KJB to John 3:16 and it reads exactly as this, then yes, you can claim that you read the 1611 KJB.
The bottom line is this- the King James Bible that KJB Onlyists read and study from is the 1769 Benjamin Blayney edition. Hardly anyone within King James “only” circles reads and studies from the *original* 1611 King James Bible. Therefore, they may as well refer to themselves as “Blaney Mainly” instead of “King James Only.”
If any one individual does read and study from the “1611 AV”, then they are a rarity. But, it *certainly* is not the standard within King James Only circles. KJB Onlyists must ask themselves, “Why isn’t it?” If we’re KJB only, then WHY don’t we read from *thee* original 1611 AV?
My Comment:
See how I respond to this in which KING JAMES TRANSLATION I RECOMMEND and why
————————————————————-
One of the most irrational and annoying cults of our time, because it is so unscholarly and so easy to disprove, is that of King James Onlyism. In the original preface to the KJV, the translators state that holding to only one version of the Bible is unwise, and they defend this rationally and objectively. However, that original preface is no longer published, and so unless you read it on-line, you would have no idea that they actually said this.
If you are a KJV-only person who wants to argue, please don’t email me. If there is ONE ERROR in translation, then it is not what you claim. There are countless errors, and it is certainly not what you claim. In fact, the KJV is a rather mediocre – even poor – translation. The number of errors in it excludes it from being a great or exceptional translation.
My Comment: NOT SURPRISED
Comments
Post a Comment