You cannot trust the NIV!

This is in regard to XD's defamation of Westcott and Hort . To accuse them of being nonChristians is beyond the pale . I will quote some words from Keith E. Gephart . He wrote a chapter in the book " From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man " . He had read some material which tried to defame W&H as well as BJU and one prof there .

" I decided to go to my shelves and pull down several of my Westcott commentaries in order to check the quotations being used to prove his heresy . I was in for a shock ! Not one of the quotes given in this expose actually proved him guilty of heresy . Westcott was quoted out of context , omissions were made in order to change the meanings of his statements , and there were even word changes in the quotes from Westcott . I was becoming very angry . Was this merely accidental , or was it intentional and malicious ? In reality , Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ ; in no way was he guilty of "heresy" and "apostasy ." " ( p.212 )

 

Helen,
What you quoted above is one of the Anti-KJV sites. Now as both parties differ so much with the logic of Poisoning the Well, we have to approach the issue step by step. But in that case the discussion on the internet website may be limited. There are many articles which ignore and refuse such argument which you quoted. Even though you may quicklt turn down, I can also quote this site as well.
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/septuagint.asp

Apparently the timing must be different from 285AD.


Sorry to tell you that you are standing on the Hoax.

Whose argument is correct can be checked by ourselves now.

Do you believe this is true?

A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the sacred books of the Jews. The king accordingly, as a preliminary, purchased the freedom of more than one hundred thousand Jewish captives, and he then sent a deputation, of which Aristeas himself was one, to Eleazar the high-priest to request a copy of the Jewish Law and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each tribe. To this the priest is represented to have agreed; and after the arrival of the translators and their magnificent reception by the king, they are said to have been conducted to an island by Demetrius, who wrote down the renderings on which they agreed by mutual conference; and thus the work is stated to have been completed in seventy-two days. The translators are then said to have received from the king most abundant rewards; and the Jews are stated to have asked permissions to take copies of the version.
Other additions were subsequently made to this story: some said that each translator was shut into a separate cell, and that all by divine inspiration made their versions word for word alike; others said that there were two in each cell, accompanied by an amanuensis; but at all events miracle and direct inspiration were supposed to be connected with the translation: hence we cannot wonder that the authority attached to this version in the minds of those who believed these stories was almost unbounded.




1. Septuagint is NOT Word-To-Word Translation. If you know Hebrew and translate 1 chapter of Deuteronomy or Exodus and compare with Septuagint, you can easily notice it is not Word-to-Word Translation.
But your article is saying that 72 scholars translated on the principle of Word-to-Word, which can hardly be found.

2. If LXX was translated on such Word-to-Word principle, there might be least chance of all translations' exact conformity. However, it is not and therefore the story that 72 scholars translated it within 72 days, and the result was exactly the same, even onbe single letter, because of the divine inspiration, is a Hoax.
If there were so much divine inspiration among the Jews, they may have achieved the independence from Ptolemy kingdom.

3. The site do not mention that the translation was limited to Torah only, which is quite famous, not the whole Old Testament. So, the currently available Septuagint must have not originated thence.

4. You said there is the Pre-Christ Septuagint extant. I was surprised to hear that, because it can shock the whole world!
The oldest OT is dated back 330-350AD which is Vatican Text and located in Vatican, then Sinaiticus dated ca 350AD is located in British Museum.
In 20 c Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered which dates back to Pre-Christ era. Samaritan Pentateuch is just Pentateuch and dates back to around 400 AD, then Oldest Masoretic Text dates back to 10c.

Now let me ask you where is the oldest Septuagint, which is Pre-Christ text, located? Where is the Oldest Septuagint?

So-called scholars always manipulate the story, and you may be bewitched, I am afraid.

5. You don't need to go far away to verify the truth.
As I showed you, you can compare between Greek NT and Spetuagint. Are they conforming each other? I showed 5 verses where both are NOT conforming each other! Why did it happen? Is it because they translated on Word-to-Word principle ?

6. Again, one of the important fact is that LXX always goes with Apocrypha.

7. Have you checked LXX differs between the chapters? Compare the number of Israelites in Exodus 1:5 and Deut 10:22.

If anyone tranlate OT based on LXX, the spiritual meanings will be lost a lot or will sound ridiculous.

Again I don't trust the people who do not behave according to what they believe!
If they believe LXX is the most accurate, then why don't they translate the entire OT based on LXX?

NIV defaces Mark 16:9-20 or John 8:1-11. Then why don't they delete them? Can you trust such people ?

 

One important point which we have to remember is that Returning to Egypt was an Abomination to the LORD.
Why should we trust such people and their writings?

Deuteronomy 17:16
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

 

You are brainwashed by Anti KJV's, without knowing much about the Truth!

Check with Messianic Jews!

Almah appears 7 times as follows:

Genesis 24:43
Exodus 2:8
Psalm 68:25
Proverb 30:19
Song of songs 1:3
Song of Songs 6:8
Isaiah 7:14

In all cases, it meant Virgin or Maid (Damsel). It depends on which era it was used.

Secondly. Bible clearly says, Lord Himself shall give you a Sign.
If a young (married) woman give birth to a son, can it be a Sign?

 

The way the Hebrews themselves translated it in the Alexandrian LXX was 'parthenos' -- which means they understood the word to mean 'virgin.'

And I am not anti-KJV.

Your arguments keep evading the points made and why you are so rabid about all this I haven't a clue.

By the way, Sidlow Baxter and his wife Isa (both of whom have gone to be with the Lord now) were close personal friends of my husband and I can guarantee to you neither was anti-KJV!

 

The Real Word-to-Word Translation include the situation where the translators do not know the full meaning of it. In such case, they are faithful to translate Word to Word. As you said, LXX translators tried to reflect their knowledge in the translation. That's why it could contain a lot of human knowledge and errors.

Pathenos itself doesn't mean Virgin always.
Revelation 14:4 shows Pathenoi which is the plural of Pathenos. Then does it mean virgins? Then why NIV indicated it as men who were not defiled with women? NIV just say they are pure.
Likewise, there was no problem with Alma, because it could mean Virgin as Pathenos meant Virgin too.
If I had mistaken you, I would apologize you. But, often the people who work against Words of God, do not recognize it.
I don't mean 100% of KJV is correct. I don't claim so and admit that there could be minor errors plus some doctrinal, controversial issues which need some improvement in KJV.
But many colleges of theology teach the students wrong informations.
I notice continuously as we read in OT, that human beings are very much wicked and attempt to deviate the Words of God continuously, and the support for LXX is one of such trends.

If you know Isaiah 53 very well, please try to compare the following LXX to KJV.

Isaiah 53:9 -LXX

9. I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death, because he committed no transgression, nor was deceit found in his mouth

10. and the Lord desires to cleanse him from his blows.
If you give an offering for a sin, you shall see a long lived offspring.



KJV Isaiah 53:9-10

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


(Interpretation)
When you make His soul as sin offering, He (Jesus) shall see his seed, He (God) shall prolong His days ( Days of the Seed, because the seed will have eternal life)

What's the interpretation of verse 9?


I hope you wake up from the dream.

 

You can trust the NIV, it is a Holy Bible, part of God's inerrant written Word Preserved for
the 20th Century (1901-2000).

Simple, they were not occultists and they
didn't belong to an 'occult society'
Does it make you a 'Westcot & Hort'-ist that you went
to an anti-'Westcot & Hort' site? No, it doesn't.
Nor does it make somebody a occultist to belong to
an anti-occult organization.

//The "Ghostlie Guild," ... was established
for the investigation of all supernatural
appearances and effects.//

Does anybody bother to read the stuff they point to?

 

I have no objection to LXX in that translation because Almah meant it.
There was nothing wrong with Almah in Hebrew MT Isaiah 7:14, because that was exactly what God said. It doesn't prove the Translated Text ( LXX) is more accurate than the Original Text in Original language.

Original Text was written in the language of the people of God at that time, while LXX was translated into Greek which was spoken by the heathen eating Pork meat, worshipping Idols, full of Myths, opressing the people of Israel, translated in the land of Egypt which was forbidden to return to any more, by God ( Deut 17:16)

Now I think we have had enough discussion on this. The only thing I like to point out is that LXX is not quoted in NT as many people misunderstand, because almost every verse has discrepancy between NT and LXX , and that there might have been Pre-Edition( Vorlage in German) Hebrew MT which was nearer to NT Quotation than to the Masoretic Text, but we are not sure. I believe no translation used LXX as a basis so far, but if anyone does so, I doubt that such translation based on LXX will be spiritually as good as the current OT based on MT.

 

xdisciplex: // I say:
"I don't believe in the trinity."//

Because you don't believe in the Trinity,
you will be hounded off the BB (Baptist board).

Yes, context does matter.
Yes, the NIV can be trusted, it is God's Holy
Bible in 20th century (1901-2000) English.

It is an academic requirement when you quote
someone who quotes another that you document
the source and that someone. You need to do this,
quite frankly, because we have already
documented on this BB the untruthfulness of
the person they are quoting. You are quoting
a documented liar. You are looking foolish
by doing this.

Seriously, you probably won't be hounded off
the BB because you don't believe in the Trinity.
You will be hounded off the BB if you don't
reveal the place where you found the quote
aledgedly reputed to Hort. And if nobody chooses
to hound you off, I will not be held responsible if
if you continue to make yourself llook foolish.

Yes, I'm still on the generic for Wellbutrin

 

xdisciplex: //1851 Dec. 29,30th - Hort: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones" (Life, Vol.I, p.211).//

This quote is pretty much a duplicate of here:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. is quoted saying:

Hort occasionally let his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus ... Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."

Why anybody would get their theology from
a COMIC BOOK PUBLISHER/VENDOR beats me???

This quote is pretty much a duplicate of here:
http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP47.htm

late 1851, Hort wrote to a friend: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. . . . Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones.”

Why anybody would get their theology from
a DIPLOMA FACTORY beats me???

This quote is pretty much a duplicate of here:
(some similiar 34 other similar sites omitted for brevity)

I find it so strange that the bible basher sites are
97% of the ones condemning (by misquote)
the Textus Receptus.

Can you spell "character murder by ellipsis"?

There is a site dedicated to defending Wescott & Hort
from these character slanders:

address: http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/quotes.html

Title of the Web Site:
The Westcott & Hort Resources Centre

Title of the page: Freqently Assaulted Quotations
vs.
Fully Accurate Quotations

// This rise in the spread of falsehoods is due largely
to the fact that extremely few people are taking
the time to verify the information for themselves:
the books the "quotes" come from are quite
rare in the first place, and sometimes
cumbersome to read through if obtained.
The authors spreading the falsehoods are either guilty
of not verifying their sources (at best), or deliberate
misrepresentation and lying (at worst). I give
the benefit of the doubt to most, simply
because the books are so hard to come by to do real verification.//

(as a side note, the author of this site used to
post here at Baptist Board in the Baptist Debate
forum: Versions/Translations Forum)

 

First of all, let me say context always matters, because it is the context which drives the meaning of the words.
Example:
What does this phrase mean?
That computer is cool.
Do I mean the computer is really nice with lots of high end gadgets. Or do I mean that its temperature is not warm. It can go either way standing outside of its context. So never say context does not matter.

Another example would be what happened to a scholar who out of his ignorance agreed to an interview for the Penn and Teller Show. He thought he was going to be able to share information on the historisity of Christ, but they only grabbed a few soundbites that made him sound like he denied that Christ ever lived much less rose from the dead. He ended up releasing a letter to our church body because so many of were shocked because he has always been a voice for Christ.

As for investigating the occult, I think there are people who are gifted to do such studies. I am one of them. We investigate the occult so that we can learn how they think and what they teach so that we can equip others and ourselves to be able to approach them in a way that will be effective.

 

Amen, Brother Mr. Chemnitz -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

I'm not necessarily calling them 'con men', but keep in mind that no con man can be a con man if he doesn't sound nice!

How does a person 'sound evil'?

xdx, there are a lot of people who are extraordinarily sincere about what they believe to be true -- and they are sincerely wrong.

If you want to find the truth out about anything, don't listen to others, dig into the data yourself. Find out for yourself what the truth is. You seem to listen to all manner of other people and get yourself chronically confused in the process. Start doing some of your own reading and research. If you truly want the truth, God won't disappoint you.

 

Which version of the Bible do you trust?

 

If you are asking me, we use several when doing Bible studies. And in the Bible study my husband heads on Wednesday nights, we encourage different versions so we can compare them. We also, however, have several concordances and other researched materials on hand to help define meanings when there is a question.

For instance, remember when Jacob peeled the sticks so the rams would breed? How many times have you heard the criticism that this could not cause specked or spotted lambs? A lot, probably. However, that is a straw man -- the Bible never says it did. It says it seemed to cause the mating itself. So we started looking it up, all of us. Some of the older translations indicate that there was a white sap which was introduced into the water. Was this the clue? I don't know, but we do have some animal breeders in our group and the conversation about possibilities was fascinating.

Using a number of different versions as well as concordances and commentaries can be a big help, as ALL English versions (and one of our Bible study members is German by birth and brings her German Bible with her to see how it was translated into German...) depend on the understanding of the interpreters/translators.

Because we are all Christians in our group, we do feel the freedom to discuss some of the minutae which interests us; the focus, however, is always on getting to know God better.

 

Read 2 Peter Chapter 2.
It explains a lot about your questions.

Jesus said:
Mat 24:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And many false Prophets shall rise, and shall deceiue many.

 

Don't know who you directed this towards but I trust the Biblia Hebrecai, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th edition, but I only recommend those if you can read Greek and Hebrew. I also trust the NKJV, KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, An American Translation, God's Word to the Nations. I don't trust the Message, what I have seen used in books makes me cringe. I don't know enough about Living Water to comment.