The King James Only Debate

[The_Bible]

The Vulgate Old Testament texts that were translated from the Greek – whether by Jerome himself, or preserving revised or unrevised Old Latin versions – are however early and important secondary witnesses to the Septuagint.

The OT from the KJV uses the hebrew and aramaic language not the vulgate.

All the texts of the Septuagint base from the "Letter of Aristeas" where the supposed librarian of the Greek Pharaoh, Ptomely 2 Philadelphus asked the high priest for the Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament) to be translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews.

Along with, 72 Jewish scholars put in separate cells where they "miraculously" translated word for word the same. So they claim this Septuagint texts existed in the time of Christ & that he used that instead of the preserved Masoretic texts.

Aristeas claims to be Greek court official sent by the "librarian" Demetrius to gather the Hebrew scholars & naming them but they do not match as hebrew names but rather Greek names in the Maccabean era. Demetrius, the supposed librarian in fact, was never librarian of the pharaoh, only served in his court.

In Aristeas 7:14, Ptomely the pharaoh tells Demetrius & the jewish scholars how wonderful it is that they came on fhe anniversary of his naval victory over Antigonus". When the ONLY recorded Egyptian naval victory happened many years after Demetrius death, proving it to be a hoax.

Many Christian scholars claim that Jesus used the septuagint in his time but that contradicts scriptures (see below) where a jot is a hebrew letter & a tittle being a small mark to distingius between hebrew letters. Also, Jesus only mentioned the scriptures in the traditional hebrew way Torah (Law), Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings).

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

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

The reason these texts are still being brought up is of what I said earlier the Roman Catholics & Othodox desperatly want them to be genuinely inspired bc it goes with their doctrine. 45 Alexandrian manuscripts vs the 5,000 Greek manuscripts favoring the textus receptus. The septuagint texts are the ones that started to canonize the apocryphas forcing you to accept everything that the doctrine contains which are leading many protestants to Rome.

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

 

[John146]

Well until you are willing to be honest with yourself I guess you will just go around in a delusion.

Open up a bible dictionary and see the word quicken defined in modern English. It's not sin to use a bible dictionary to bring clarity to the text.

02421
חיה chayah khaw-yaw’


a primitive root compare 02331; v; BDB-310b
{See TWOT on 644 }


AV-live 153, alive 34, save 13, quicken 14, revive 12, surely 10, life 9, recover 8, misc 9; 262




1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health


1a) (Qal)


1a1) to live


1a1a) to have life

1a1b) to continue in life, remain alive

1a1c) to sustain life, to live on or upon

1a1d) to live (prosperously)


1a2) to revive, be quickened


1a2a) from sickness

1a2b) from discouragement

1a2c) from faintness

1a2d) from death



1b) (Piel)


1b1) to preserve alive, let live

1b2) to give life

1b3) to quicken, revive, refresh


1b3a) to restore to life

1b3b) to cause to grow

1b3c) to restore

1b3d) to revive



1c) (Hiphil)


1c1) to preserve alive, let live

1c2) to quicken, revive


1c2a) to restore (to health)

1c2b) to revive

1c2c) to restore to life


Much easier than going to the Strongs and the Greek.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Not really looking for the easy way out when it comes to studying the word of God.

 

[trofimus]

You are right and I get what you're saying here, and I agree with you. The last example you gave is no different than here and I also agree that both the KJV and NA27 are both good on that verse.

Well, one must be with the error, both cant be true.
I just illustrated that it is quite hard to say which reading is the right one, sometimes... and many things must be taken into consideration.

The older reading usually wins, though.

Now that you have compared scripture with scripture on those passages, take a look at some other examples where it doesn't pan out that the NA27 is right. Find another passage in the NA27 that confirms that Jesus is God's one and son.

[h=1]John 3:16New International Version (NIV)[/h][FONT=&quot]16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.[/FONT]

I am not sure if I understand your demand/question

In the John 3:16 the only difference between the TR and NA is that the NA does not have the word "His".

"The one and only" is the NIV translation of the same Greek word KJV had, just translated differently.

 

[trofimus]

Ya but the KJV did not use the Vulgate. The first English translated Vulgate was from John Wycliffe and even then the papacy had issues with that where they demanded after he died for his bones to be crushed and scattered in the river. Even Wycliffe felt the need to oppose the Catholcis. John Hus, who supported his idea of people being able to read the scriptures in their own language was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindle for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg.

I am glad you mention our national (Czech) hero and martyr John Huss (or Jan Hus, in Czech), but I must add that the KJV actually has some readings that are present only in the Latin Vulgate, they are in no Greek manuscript.

For example Revelation 22:19:
"God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (which means loosing salvation).

Every existing Greek manuscript has:
"God shall take away his part out of the tree of life" (which means from the eternal life)

And there are other examples.

 

[wanderer6059]

The OT from the KJV uses the hebrew and aramaic language not the vulgate.

All the texts of the Septuagint base from the "Letter of Aristeas" where the supposed librarian of the Greek Pharaoh, Ptomely 2 Philadelphus asked the high priest for the Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament) to be translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews.

Along with, 72 Jewish scholars put in separate cells where they "miraculously" translated word for word the same. So they claim this Septuagint texts existed in the time of Christ & that he used that instead of the preserved Masoretic texts.

Aristeas claims to be Greek court official sent by the "librarian" Demetrius to gather the Hebrew scholars & naming them but they do not match as hebrew names but rather Greek names in the Maccabean era. Demetrius, the supposed librarian in fact, was never librarian of the pharaoh, only served in his court.

In Aristeas 7:14, Ptomely the pharaoh tells Demetrius & the jewish scholars how wonderful it is that they came on fhe anniversary of his naval victory over Antigonus". When the ONLY recorded Egyptian naval victory happened many years after Demetrius death, proving it to be a hoax.

Many Christian scholars claim that Jesus used the septuagint in his time but that contradicts scriptures (see below) where a jot is a hebrew letter & a tittle being a small mark to distingius between hebrew letters. Also, Jesus only mentioned the scriptures in the traditional hebrew way Torah (Law), Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings).

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

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

The reason these texts are still being brought up is of what I said earlier the Roman Catholics & Othodox desperatly want them to be genuinely inspired bc it goes with their doctrine. 45 Alexandrian manuscripts vs the 5,000 Greek manuscripts favoring the textus receptus. The septuagint texts are the ones that started to canonize the apocryphas forcing you to accept everything that the doctrine contains which are leading many protestants to Rome.

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

[FONT=&quot]It seems this has been a recurring theme on our blog of late, but discussions here and elsewhere have been focusing in on this point: Did Jesus and the Apostles use the Septuagint in their ministries and in quoting from the Old Testament? I was recently reminded that the translators of the King James Bible, themselves would answer “yes”. See their words below from “The Translators to the Reader“.[/FONT]

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon’s fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings’ libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. 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? 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. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. 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. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventywent 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 gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. 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 especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome 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. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.
​

 

[trofimus]

Not really looking for the easy way out when it comes to studying the word of God.

Which is the opposite KJV translators wanted.

They made the Holy Bible "vulgar" to their contemporaries. People like you were very much against the KJV in those times, because it was too easy to read.

 

[The_Bible]

It seems this has been a recurring theme on our blog of late, but discussions here and elsewhere have been focusing in on this point: Did Jesus and the Apostles use the Septuagint in their ministries and in quoting from the Old Testament? I was recently reminded that the translators of the King James Bible, themselves would answer “yes”. See their words below from “The Translators to the Reader“.

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon’s fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings’ libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. 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? 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. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. 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. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventywent 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 gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. 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 especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome 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. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.
​

K put that in your own words and tell me your argument nowhere in the bible did Jesus hint that the manuscriptsof the OT would be in greek rather he used the original jewish format of their books.

 

[wanderer6059]

K put that in your own words and tell me your argument nowhere in the bible did Jesus hint that the manuscriptsof the OT would be in greek rather he used the original jewish format of their books.

answers right there for you brother, read on..... or go on....

 

[The_Bible]

answers right there for you brother, read on..... or go on....

I read it and I have the same rebuttal from what I posted about the supposed septuagint. Yea ik it what it claims but where are the evidence as i showed in the very letter itself the errors it had.

 

[wanderer6059]

I read it and I have the same rebuttal from what I posted about the supposed septuagint. Yea ik it what it claims but where are the evidence as i showed in the very letter itself the errors it had.

[h=4]What is the Septuagint?[/h]

At the simplest level, the Septuagint is the old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament” to Christians), which was produced in the time between the writing of the last OT book and the writing of the first NT book. This seems relatively innocuous on the surface until one recognizes that (a) the Septuagint was the first major translation of ANY work of antiquity from its source language into another language, making it one of the foremost literary achievements of all time, and (b) the Septuagint was the translation of Scripture used by both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries, many of whom had lost access to the original Hebrew texts as that language fell into disuse among the laity. In other words, much like the KJV was the landmark, readable, widely available English Bible from 1611 to the 20th century, so also was the Septuagint the “pew Bible” (anachronistically speaking) for the Judeo-Christian world. Its importance cannot be understated.

 

[The_Bible]

What is the Septuagint?

At the simplest level, the Septuagint is the old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament” to Christians), which was produced in the time between the writing of the last OT book and the writing of the first NT book. This seems relatively innocuous on the surface until one recognizes that (a) the Septuagint was the first major translation of ANY work of antiquity from its source language into another language, making it one of the foremost literary achievements of all time, and (b) the Septuagint was the translation of Scripture used by both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries, many of whom had lost access to the original Hebrew texts as that language fell into disuse among the laity. In other words, much like the KJV was the landmark, readable, widely available English Bible from 1611 to the 20th century, so also was the Septuagint the “pew Bible” (anachronistically speaking) for the Judeo-Christian world. Its importance cannot be understated.

We do not use Greek for our OT we use hebrew and aramaic. The greek used for the septuagint was the "supposed translation" of the hebrew bible in Alexandria, Egypt. I already proved how it is a hoax bc ALL major evidence would base it from the supposed letter of Aristeas. Our OT is translated to hebrew and aramaic from the Greek manuscripts in Antioch NOT Alexandria which was two very different things.

 

[wanderer6059]

We do not use Greek for our OT we use hebrew and aramaic. The greek used for the septuagint was the "supposed translation" of the hebrew bible in Alexandria, Egypt. I already proved how it is a hoax bc ALL major evidence would base it from the supposed letter of Aristeas. Our OT is translated to hebrew and aramaic from the Greek manuscripts in Antioch NOT Alexandria which was two very different things.

prove it with a like, hard evidence, or stop... because the rest of the theological world disagree with you. and they have evidence.

 

[The_Bible]

prove it with a like, hard evidence, or stop... because the rest of the theological world disagree with you. and they have evidence.

Prove what?

 

[KJV1611]

How many of you guys can see the book of David's DNA in this verse. Also do you see the body of Christ in this verse.

Psalm 139:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

Ok nobody responded that I saw, and I know why. The book of David's DNA is not in that NASB verse neither is the body of Christ. Now see if you can see it in the KJV.

Psalm 139:16 KJV
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok nobody responded that I saw, and I know why. The book of David's DNA is not in that NASB verse neither is the body of Christ. Now see if you can see it in the KJV.

Psalm 139:16 KJV
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

they both say the same thing. The one does not say anything that would help a person be a better Christian, or become a Christian than the other.

unformed is actually a better translation that unperfect..

The Hebrew word is actually embryo, But in the way it is used. Formless would be the word for word translation.

 

[wanderer6059]

Prove what?

prove what you believe.... like actual evidence. treat this like it was a court case and you had to prove your testimony.

 

[KJV1611]

they both say the same thing. The one does not say anything that would help a person be a better Christian, or become a Christian than the other.

unformed is actually a better translation that unperfect..

The Hebrew word is actually embryo, But in the way it is used. Formless would be the word for word translation.

A simple I don't see either one would suffice.

 

[The_Bible]

prove what you believe.... like actual evidence. treat this like it was a court case and you had to prove your testimony.

I gave you the info and for me to gather the evidence I would need a group of people specified for this. That's a thread all on its own most I can do is give you the link to a website to study. The same would be for you on any evidence you may have for any other codexes.


Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint

 

[fredoheaven]

Yes, because none of the modern versions present a fault of distortion to render the text inadequate and possibly heretical. To be sure there are better versions to explain the great truths of God but that is in its explanation. The truth of God is found in all versions because it does not affect the outcome of the direction or content of the text. So if it doesnt pose any threat to a major distortion of a text then you can trust the bible, wether it be esv or niv. (obviously the new world translation etc do not count as they are not on the basis of orthodox christianity at all)

Hi,

But I humbly say NO to all versions that the truth of God is found. That's right "if" it doem't pose any threat to a major distortion we can trust the Bible. Yet many of the Newer Versions does that. A case in point? Try to analyze or study this single verse of 1 John 4:3 as rendered in the KJV and hoping you find the major difference. FYI the NWT is also based on the Wescott and Hort.

God bless

KJV 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

ESV 1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

NIV 1 John 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

NWT 1 John 4;3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God.+ Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming,+ and now it is already in the world.

 

[fredoheaven]

Please,try without "hoho", "muslim argument" etc.

"Hoho" is my own modification of "Ho, ho" not by Santa but came from the LORD! This maybe off topic, but you are still unarmed on the issue of KJV only debate...

God bless...

Zechariah 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.