No major doctrines changed?

Good catch. There is more......much more. A similar phrase is used of JOSEPH (and others). Something like "SON OF A YEAR".

I am going to have to pull out some ref material out deep storage to reply properly. But this term is both crucial and fascinating.
When understood......this term explodes several myths and misconceptions.

I will try and track it down later.

The thing is......the supposedly "inerrant" KJV has these Genesis genealogy errors!
The fact of which I have posted earlier (many times) in easily digestible graphical form.

No replies to that bombshell post. Just crickets......

The fact is, the LXX Greek text was translated (originally in about 200ish BC) from EARLY AND ACCURATE Paleo-Hebrew scrolls that predated the later Masoretic massacre by Rabbi Akiva.

Who oh why does everyone gloss over this stunning reveal?

The truth is......this 6th millennium myth is baloney and needs to be called out as such.
Here is some related material that you should find fascinating:

https://christianchat.com/threads/l...have-a-biblical-worldview.182445/post-3834586

https://christianchat.com/threads/l...have-a-biblical-worldview.182445/post-3834582

Dodging the issue.

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others.

There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

For countless millions of Christians all over the world and for over 400 years the "awkward KJV" was the written Word of God. Then along came the COPRRUPTERS of the Bible to add their FALSE AND MISLEADING footnotes, since they went to all the corrupted texts for that information. So if you enjoy your footnotes keep at, and you might just come across one or two blatant lies to help you turn away from them.

Textual criticism is for me a tangential interest. I do not profess to anything more than a basic understanding and grasp of this scholarly venue......nothing more. But even I am sufficiently informed to know that there is MASSIVE influence in our present day NT by the Greek LXX.

Quotations from the Lxx. In the New Testament. (biblehub.com)

(e) More than half of the direct quotations from the O.T. in the Epistles of St Paul are taken from the LXX. without material change (Rom. i.17, ii.24, iii.4, iv.7 f., 18, vii.7, viii.36, ix.7, 12, 13, 15, 26, x.6 ff., 16, 18, 19, 20 f., xi.26 f., 34f., xii.20 f., xiii.9, xv.3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21; 1 Cor. iii.20, vi.16, x.7, 26, xv.32; 2 Cor. iv.13, vi.2, viii.15, ix.9; Gal. iii.6, 10, 11, 12, iv.27, v.14; Eph. iv.16; 2 Tim. ii.19). A smaller proportion skew important variants (Rom. iii.20 = Gal. ii.16 pasa sarx for pas zon LXX.; ix.9 kata ton kairon touton eleusomai, kai estai te Sarra huios for hexo . . . kata ton kairon touton . . . kai hexei huion Sarra LXX.; ix.17 eis auto touto exegeira se for heneken toutou dieterethes, and dunamin for ischun LXX. [834] ; ix.27 ho arithmos ton huion I., epi tes ges; xiv.11 zo ego for kat' emautou omnuo, exomologesetai to theo for omeitai ton theon LXX.; 1 Cor. i.19 atheteso for krupso LXX.; Gal. iii.8 panta ta ethne for pasai hai phulai tes ges LXX.; iii.13 epikataratos (cf. v.20) for kekataramenos LXX.; Eph. iv.8 edoken domata tois anthropois for elabes d. en anthropo [835] LXX.; iv.25 meta tou plesion for pros ton pl. LXX.; v.31 anti toutou for heneken t., om. autou 1º, 2º; cf. Mt. xix.5 f., Mc. x.7 f.; vi.3 kai ese makrochronios for k. ina makrochr. gene).

Those errors come from whenever they could not translate the Tanakh, they went to the Septuagint, and tried to match the text.

And there's a great diversion between Hebrew and Greek in terms of defining and titling every single word.

Copies of earlier manuscripts. Obviously.

The thing is.....Rabbi Akiva's mischief and meddling is well known. And there are enough Greek LXX manuscripts and many other manuscripts and fragments around to prove it.

It's a blatant contradiction, not merely an "apparent" one as you claim.

The reconciliation you offer is irrelevant, because you refuse to stop calling out similar issues in other translations. Stop the hypocrisy.

Ok, I'll try to check this out. Thanks

"KJV for 400 years".................... Irrelevant. God isn't restricted to one phase in the development of a language.

Settle down. You don't make the KJV any more appealing with your obnoxious rantings. The Holy Spirit has used the NIV
to help me personally for 35 years. I'll stick with it. I've always found your recycled accusations to be unfounded.

The KJV was the word of God for people for 400 years because they didn't have another option. That doesn't mean the KJV is the infallible word of God in English. God has given us so many tools to work with; some good some not so good, but it would be foolish to just ignore them. KJVO are always complaining that people are dumbed down. So why is it a problem when people take some initiative to educate themselves and learn to use the tools God has given us. I'll tell you why: It's a problem if people educate themselves in anything but the KJ Bible.

The KJV is still the most trustworthy and reliable English language translation to date. That is the primary rationale for the existence of the Trinitarian Bible Society. You claimed at the outset that there were no major doctrinal changes in the modern versions. Now that you have been shown that there are actually serious issues (and there are many more examples which have not even been touched), have you done your due diligence? Or do you wish to keep parroting the same old excuses for supporting corrupt modern versions? The very foundation for the modern versions is based on a lie.

Talking about "the tools" for Bible study, there are indeed legitimate tools for this purpose. And guess what? ALL OF THEM ARE BASED ON THE KING JAMES BIBLE. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Nave's Topical Bible, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Halley's Bible Handbook, etc. Matthew Henry's Commentaries, John Gill's Commentaries, and another half dozen or more commentaries are also based on the King James Bible. So if you wish to be a serious Bible student, why are you complaining about the Authorized Version? You should be grateful for it.

I believe the New Testament, inside the KJV Bible, is correct enough in Salvation areas and Who the Person of who Yeshua is in John 1:1...the WORD...was/is/is to come...made flesh, etc., to be concerned about it.

But I differ with the Old Testament because I have the actual written and copied Scrolls by the shofars for the most authentic Tanakh in the English language. The original restored Hebrew language translated by shofars into English.


And even though I like the KJV New Testament, I actually prefer the TLV, which is Greek to Aramaic/Hebrew to English. It includes literal examples because their words are also math and pictures. When they wrote they painted a thought into a picture of words using pictures.

That is jmo..

The signal-to-noise ratio of the NIV is slightly worse that some other translations (and definitely is not my 1st choice).
But it still ain't all that bad......

And it's still good enough to get the job done no doubt about that.

I remember in the 80s when the thought process was which version of the KJV Bible do you want, and I wanted the Dakes at the time, but the New Translations began coming out.

Back then, there was a claim one of the New Versions NIV and others...did not include the Blood shed on the Cross Jesus died from.

Was there ever truth to that Rumor?

Because Passover and Easter are two different events.

The Jews celebrate the Passover on one day.

Christians celebrate Easter over 40 days.

Christians celebrate Easter, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Whereas Jews celebrate the Passover according to the law.

Deuteronomy 16:5-6
You are not allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your towns which the Lord your God is giving you. But only at the place where the Lord your God chooses to establish His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover in the evening at sunset, at the time that you came out of Egypt.

Very different events.

The KJV made a terrible mistake in using the word "Easter" in their translation of Acts 12:4.

There were newer translations MUCH earlier than the 80's... I remember in elementary school when my parents bought me a Revised Standard Version for my Bible classes at school... I went to a Christian school....
The first "paraphrased" version I remember was "Good News for Modern Man".... came out either late 60's or very early 70's.
The American Standard version (ASB) was out at that tme, as well, IIRC. The NASB is considered by many scholars to be one of the most textually accurate transations available, or at least it was a few years back.