Septuagintophobia

Posted by Pavlos on December 17, 2009

This article is meant to be factually and historically accurate with a touch of humour.

 

Septuagint – What is it? Quote from http://www.septuagint.net/ 

“Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.”

The Greek for LXX is ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomēkonta, [the translation of the 70] abbreviated to the letter “O” because in the Greek numbering system, “O” is equivalent to 70.

“Septuagintophobia” or “hebdomekontaphobia” is the irrational morbid fear of the Septuagint. Who suffers from this bizarre phobia? It is a common accompanying syndrome of KJV Onlyism or KJV Perfectionism or to give it its scientific name, “Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioitis”. The purpose of this article is to help these people, their relatives and friends by providing enough facts to reassure them that the Septuagint is quite harmless when understood in its true historical context and in fact can be useful and beneficial when used in the right way.

In The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp , from http://samgipp.com/answerbook/ , question 9 asks, 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… 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… “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 [sic].   The last word in this paragraph should be “Hexapla”.

Another site promoting septuagintophobia is http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/faq/septugnt.html

If one researches the theory that the LXX is a post-NT document one will notice that the few proponents of this view tend to quote each other. The only scholarly name which is often cited is Paul Kahle. For example, http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/faq/septugnt.html

WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?
In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes

on page 13

“Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype… Peter Ruckman (in the Christian’s handbook of Manuscript Evidence) has taken a similar position. His arguments can be summarized as follows:1.      The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 – 150 B.C. 2.      The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. 3.      No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.  4.      In fact, the Septuagint “quotes” from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. – O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text.”

… Thus Ruckman believes that manuscript evidence for a pre-Christian LXX is totally lacking.

A full text of “Forever Settled” is found here http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjcforv2.htm

But who was Kahle?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Kahle

 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10580.html

Did he really believe that a Greek translation of the OT did not exist before the birth of Christ?

A 1963 paper from Grace Theologically Seminary says that Paul Kahle believed there was a roughly standardized text of the LXX in existence in the first century BC.

http://home.insightbb.com/~cddilling/LXX.htm

… it is the opinion of Kahle and Nyberg that:

Both the LXX and the Syriac go back to old popular recensions which were in circulation among the Diaspora Jews, whereas the MT [Masoretic Text] offers a careful recension which stands in relation to the Diaspora text just as the texts of the classical authors established by the scholars of Alexandria stand in relation to the popular texts of those authors which are now available to us in the Egyptian papyri.

“Kahle’s position on the Septuagint isn’t too different from the common perception held by scholars today, though his specific conclusion is disputed. He agreed that the tradition derived from the Letter of Aristeas was spurious. He also knew that there were varieties of Greek translations of the Old Testament. However, he took it a step further to say that the varieties were not birthed by a single prototype; rather they were in existence before a single volume took shape. In other words, there was no one Septuagint to begin with, but very diverse translations that eventually culminated into one.” Quoted from http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/christ-and-the-scriptures-part-iii-jesus-bibliology/

Kahle is not only quoted by KJV Onlyites but also Jehovah’s Witnesses who use his work to support their use of “Jehovah” in their translation of the N.T. They refer to Greek O.T. manuscripts which show the divine name in Hebrew letters.

The following is a very generalised and brief explanation of the Greek O.T. and Kahle’s theory.

Kahle is indeed a very famous scholar (among students of the LXX) who was influenced by the targumic theory (the targums are the Aramaic translations of the OT which were given orally and then put down to writing, of which we have different versions for various books). While this theory works for the targums (although that is also debated) it has proven wrong for the LXX. Most LXX scholars reject Kahle’s theory, especially after the discoveries of the Judean Desert and the work of Dominique Barthelemy (Les Devanciers d’Aquila) who shows how there is a LXX archetype which began to be revised in the first century BC or maybe earlier.

Most of the disagreements with people today arise because of wrong definitions. The LXX for example, what does that mean? It is like saying: The English Bible. Well, which version do you mean? This is not defined usually and confusion arises.

I will put the history of the Greek Bible in very simplistic terms. I will call the archetype, the Old Greek (OG) and proceed with what most scholars accept today. The Pentateuch was translated first around 3rd C. B.C. in Alexandria. The rest of the OT books were translated later but we are not certain of the time and location and by whom. We know that most books (with perhaps the exception of Ecclesiastes) were translated before mid-2nd century when Ben Sirach’s grandson wrote his prologue and mentioned that the other OT books had been translated.

As soon as these OG versions had been individually completed, they were copied and often revised and corrected to match the Hebrew text more closely, also, others were known to have translated the OT later into Greek. Therefore, in the time of Christ, no one really had one copy of a book called the LXX. There were scattered copies everywhere of OG, revised copies, new Greek translations etc. Moreover, Origen in the 3rd C. AD decided to produce a corrected LXX and produced the Hexapla, a book in which he compared various existing Greek versions with the Hebrew. This “corrected” version took all of those various versions into account. His version was widely distributed and became a kind of standard. Consequently, scholars today are in the very difficult situation of sifting through and trying to get rid of later corrections in order to recapture the original OG. As far as we know, nobody ever possessed the OG OT in its entirety. As soon as something was produced it was copied and revised and errors crept in. Scholars use other versions as well from other languages, e.g. Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic etc. which have been translated from the LXX in order to compare them to each other and compare the differences.

Therefore, there is some truth when people say “there was no LXX in the time of Jesus”. There was no CORPUS of LXX writings collected together, or pure OG writings. The first collected Corpus of LXX is Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century AD. It is true that sometimes scribes harmonised readings between the OT and the NT when something is quoted in the NT. When a NT writer quotes the OT differently than the Greek OT the scribe had before him, then he could have gone back and corrected the LXX because you could not have a NT writer quote something “erroneously”. What the scribe did not know is that the NT writer could have been quoting from another Greek version he had at his disposal, or a revised version, or an older version than the one the scribe possessed. Every individual case is examined very thoroughly by scholars and every verse is different.

A very important manuscript dated around 50 BC is the Minor Prophets scroll which is in Greek and shows the OG that had already been corrected at that time. Philo (20 BC-50 AD) was also aware of the LXX and used it.

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html we read,

“The collection of writing recovered in the Qumran environs has restored to us a voluminous corpus of Jewish documents dating from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E., demonstrating the rich literary activity of Second Temple-period Jewry. The collection comprises documents of a varied nature, most of them of a distinct religious bent. The chief categories represented are biblical, apocryphal or pseudepigraphical, and sectarian writings. The study of this original library has demonstrated that the boundaries between these categories is far from clear-cut.”

The biblical manuscripts include what are probably the earliest copies of these texts to have come down to us. Most of the books of the Bible are represented in the collection. Some books are extant in large number of copies; others are represented only fragmentarily on mere scraps of parchment. The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. …”

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

“The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).”

 No serious scholar denies the fact that the OT was translated into Greek before the time of Christ. While the Letter of Aristeas contains surreal details, there is some truth in it and such a major project of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek could only have started in Alexandria since it was the centre of ancient scholarship. Many other writings from all over the world were collected there and the large Jewish community in Alexandria was Greek speaking. Indeed that was the ideal time to undertake a Greek translation. It became a vital necessity for the Greek-speaking Jews. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The KJV Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic Text is the source from which the KJV was translated into English. While the oldest complete manuscripts of the Septuagint date from the fourth century, the oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex, was copied in ~ 1008 A.D. There is not one complete Hebrew Old Testament extant manuscript dated before the birth of Christ. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the ninth century AD.

Therefore, using Septuagintophobic logic, the Hebrew O.T. “quotes” from the Greek N.T. and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of  N.T. – O.T. quotations, the later formulators of the Hebrew O.T. made it conform to the Greek N.T. text.     Of course, this is ridiculous.

What did the translators of the KJV think of the LXX?

Many of the older editions of the KJV included informative introductory material under the heading “The Translators to the Reader” 

[http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/trn-rdr.asp].

The quotes below are from this introduction or prologue to the KJV by the translators themselves and reveals what they thought of the LXX. They were not afraid to refer to it and to use it, neither did they believe it was written after the NT. Yes, they used it and declared that the Apostles used it. The translators of the KJV likened the LXX to the forerunner, John the Baptist. They knew that it was an imperfect translation of the Hebrew, nevertheless, they approved of it and made use of it.

The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek.

While God 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;⁴⁴ then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that isHebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But when the fullness 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 ofHebrew 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 Baptistdid 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, Aquilla 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 theHexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. 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, asEpiphanius⁴⁵ gathereth) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries.⁴⁶ 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,⁴⁷ 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.⁴⁸ 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:⁴⁹ so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome⁵⁰ 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.

An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.

Also found in the KJV’s “The Translators to the Reader”

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part: and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c.⁸⁷ A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all⁸⁸) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch⁸⁹ writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon too build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, not proportion the houses, in such comely fashion as had been most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra⁹⁰ and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept when they considered the latter): notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of translations. 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 Hierome 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 the appellation and name of the Word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are sure Tertullian⁹¹ was of another mind: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try men’s faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he, lighting upon certain rules made byTychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the Word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine’s third book De Doctrina Christiana.⁹² To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

The gospel writer Matthew quoted the LXX in Matt 1:23 when he used the word “parthenos” / “virgin” instead of the general word meaning “young woman” [Hebrew: almah]. He could have used the Greek word “neanis”. In fact, this was the word used in a revised LXX edited by anti-Christian people e.g. Aquila of Pontus (about 126 A.D.).

The translators of the KJV used the word “virgin” in Isa 7:14 which shows they followed the LXX translation.  Of course, Matthew’s use of “parthenos” was guided by the Holy Spirit.

There are many other quotations of the OT in the NT which are taken from the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The reader can do his / her own research to find out which are the verses in question. Those who are certain that the Holy Scriptures (i.e. the Bible) are inspired by God, can say for sure that those parts of the LXX which are quoted in the NT must also be inspired. Parts of the LXX which are not quoted in the NT are not inspired. The Apostle Paul quoted a pagan Greek philosopher (i.e. Epimenides of Knossos, Titus 1:12 & Acts 17:28) but that doesn’t mean everything Epimenides said or wrote is inspired.

Parts of the LXX which are historically inaccurate and support such things as Prayers for dead (Tobit12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15) are obviously not inspired and should be treated with caution.

In some cases the translators of the KJV preferred to follow the LXX reading rather than the Hebrew MT. Below are some examples of this.

An OT prophetic scripture regarding the Messiah is Psalm 22:16   

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.   KJV

This actually reflects the LXX reading.

For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.  LXX

Below are quotations from Jewish translations which follow the M.T.

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.  Jewish Publication Society  OT 1917

Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet.             JPS Tanakh 1985

From Jewish website

 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

For more information on this see

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf http://isv.org/catacombs/psalm_22_v16_like_a_lion.htm

In Job 41:6 KJV follows the LXX in using “make a banquet” instead of the Hebrew “bargain/sell/traffic” – see http://www.creationism.org/lang/LangJobScience/LangJobSci41.htm

The following information is taken from: James D. Price, Ph.D., Prof. of Hebrew and OT, Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, TN USA.

However, I have removed from the list what I consider spurious verses where the differences were due to translation rather than textual differences and where I could not easily substantiate what was being claimed.

 2 Chron 17:4–Hebrew  God

                                LXX, KJV 1611  LORD God

                                KJV 1769  LORD God 

 Song 4:1; 6:5–Hebrew  going down

                                LXX, KJV  appear

 Isa 57:8–lit. hand (figure of nudity)

                                LXX, KJV [omits the word]

Hos 13:16–Hebrew  is held guilty

                                LXX, KJV  become desolate

 The following are a few examples of where the KJV follows the LXX and the Vg against the Hebrew MT:

 Gen 7:22–Hebrew Spirit

                                LXX, Vg, KJV (omits the word)

 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life,     KJV 

And all things which have the breath of life,    LXX

all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, Jewish Publication Society  OT 1917

all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit Young’s Literal Translation  1898

 Num 10:29–Hebrew  Reuel

                                LXX, Vg, KJV  Raguel

KJV transliterates the LXX spelling.

 Psalm 39:13–Hebrew remove your [gaze] / look away

                                LXX, Vg, KJV O spare me.

 For further information on the Septuagint refer to the following article:

The Septuagint: God’s Blessing on Translation

by Debra E. Anderson

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.asp

This article takes a balanced approach regarding the LXX and it is published by a society which promotes the KJV only for the English-speaking world. However, TBS do not claim the KJV is perfect. This is why it uses the original Greek [i.e. TR] and Hebrew [i.e. MT] as the basis for any new translations they undertake.

Septuagintophobia is irrational just like Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioitis. If you find that the sufferer will not listen then it is better to agree to disagree and avoid the subject. If that person is willing to fellowship with you despite your differences then concentrate on aspects you have in common. Remember, 1 Peter 4:8   And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. [KJV]

Of course, the Word “charity” should have been translated “love”. The Greek word is “agape”.  The Greek word for “charity” or “alms” is “eleemosune”. Tyndale translated the word “agape” correctly by using the word “love”. The Geneva Bible retained “love” but unfortunately the KJV translators changed it to “charity”. Oh no! We’re arguing again with the Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioites and if they say it’s “charity” then it must be “charity”. Who am I to argue?

 

__________________________________________________________________________

What David Cloud thinks of  G. Riplinger and her book http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080114045847/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger2.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080113111735/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger2.htm

  http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080113105348/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm

 

What G. Riplinger thinks of David Cloud http://www.av1611.org/kjv/omadman.html

                         http://www.avpublications.com/5_critiques/o_mm_pt2.htm

Dangers of “KJV Onlyism” or KJV Perfectionism

Posted by Pavlos on

2 Kings 18:4 He [King Hezekiah] removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

The brazen serpent which Moses made was something good, which brought healing to the Israelites. However, after many years it became an idol. The misuse of something good can lead to error and sin.

The purpose of this article is to expose how extreme fundamentalism (mostly from America) has caused much harm amongst Christians by their erroneous views of the King James Version (KJV) of the Holy Scriptures.

What Is “KJV-Onlyism” ?

KJV Onlyism is not preferring the KJV because it is a superbly accurate translation based on the best manuscripts. It goes far beyond that. KJV Onlyism is the belief that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the “true” Bible. Followers of this doctrine believe that the KJV is totally inerrant, totally infallible, and totally inspired – not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and that any deviation of the words, even minutely, constitutes changing God’s word, as the text of the KJV is exactly how God intended the Scriptures to be. Some believe that the KJV is superior to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew.

This belief is held widely among “Independent Fundamentalist Baptists” in America. They now prefer to substitute the word “Bible-believing” for “fundamentalist” for obvious reasons. Perhaps over ten years ago, it was not an issue in the UK. However, there are more and more American missionaries in the UK who are promoting this belief and are using it as a test for a true Christian. It is even being included in “statements of faith”. It is a cause of division.

Consider the following statements (including spelling errors) taken from the website of Touchet Baptist Church in the USA.

“We Are King James 1611 Bible Only!”

• We are KJB more than most folks can even imagine!
• The old Cambridge text is all we will look for in our purchases- all other KJB’s are being tinkered with more and more.  We can’t even trust ‘church publishers’ without our scrutiny of their possible changes – along with tracts and booklets and books – no one can be trusted anymore.
• We will not willingly listen, seek out or encourage any greek in our studies or sermons – or in or from the pulpit – NONE!
• No Hebrew is necessary, either!
• A concordance exists to help us find other verses, not any deeper meanings and proper useages.
• English Language of the King James Bible is the language God put His words into for the 7th and last writing.
• This KJ1611 Bible is alive with the Spirit of God and ALL the modern versions/perversions are alive with the spirit of the devil!
• The King James 1611 Bible is essential for one’s salvation.
• The King James 1611 Bible is truly the sword of the Spirit and is essential for spiritual circumcision, without which Christ can not enter nor can we be made holy!
• The King James 1611 Bible is the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation!
• The King James 1611 Bible is the only inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God and IS the very words of God
• Fellowship with Jesus Christ is from proper prayer and reading and / or hearing of the King James Bible!
• Faith is essential for one to learn and grow from this Book.
• It will be the lack of hearing the King James Bible that will be the base of the famine in Amos 8:11-13
• When we read the phrase, “word of God,” word of Jesus Christ, etc. those are referring to the King James 1611 Bible today.
• Any reference to the word “Scriptures’ is a reference to the King James 1611 Bible today.
• If one wants any true doctrine, is willing to take reproof from God, is willing to be corrected and instructed in righteousness, the King James 1611 Bible must be the source!
• The King James 1611 Bible is higher than any physical or mental experience that one sees or feels.
• The King James 1611 Bible is to be magnified even above His name! Psalm 138:2
• When you read from a King James 1611 Bible, you are hearing from God Himself!
• John 1:1 is referring to the King James 1611 Bible today as well as Jesus Christ.
• If you could take the King James 1611 Bible and turn it into a flesh and blood person, you would have Jesus Christ.
• If you took the person of Jesus Christ and turn Him into words, you would have the King James 1611 Bible.
• Blood was shed for this book to be in our hands today – as was the blood of Christ so we could be in His hands today!
• I Thessalonians 2:12 is a reference to the King James 1611 Bible today and it will just what that verse promises – to effectually worketh also in you that believe!
• The King James 1611 Bible IS the Love of God.”

Many of these statements make the KJV an idol just as the brazen serpent of Ancient Israel. Extremism like this is an embarrassment to those who prefer to use the Authorised Version and a stumblingblock to those we wish to persuade to adopt the best English translation.

RUCKMAN’S “ADVANCED REVELATION”

One KJV perfectionist, Peter Ruckman from Pensacola in Florida, believes that the KJV 1611 is more inspired than the original Greek and Hebrew. Note the following statements taken from his book The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence Pensacola Bible Press, 1970:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (p.147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (p. 336).

In When the KJV Departs from the “Majority Text”by Jack Moorman, [published by the Bible for Today, and is identified as B.F.T. #1617] we find the following quote [with emphasis in bold by me]

“When a version has been the standard as long as the Authorized Version and when that version has demonstrated its power in the conversion of sinners, building up of believers, sending forth of preachers and missionaries on a scale not achieved by all other versions and foreign language editions combined; the hand of God is at work. Such a version must not be tampered with. And in those comparatively few places where it seems to depart from the majority reading, it would be far more honoring toward God’s promises of preservation to believe that the Greek and not the English had strayed from the original!“ ( p. 28).

This is like putting the “cart before the horse”. The KJV is derived from the Greek original. The Greek is not derived from the 1611 KJV.

Matthew 23:16-22 ¹⁶ Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! ¹⁷ Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? ¹⁸ And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. ¹⁹ Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? ²⁰ Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. ²¹ And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. ²² And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

In his MODERN BIBLES - the Dark Secret – Part 2 of 2, we find the following quote, “I say that the KJV is without “proven error” because I am not aware of errors having been proven!”

One wonders where was God’s word before 1611 and what about the millions of people who do not speak English? Of course, each person needs a translation in his own language unless one is fluent in the original languages but why should the Chinese read a Bible translated from KJV 1611? Why not from the Geneva? Why not from Diodati’s Italian Bible? Why not from the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Bible? Better still, why not from the original Greek and Hebrew?

Many fundamentalists do not even understand the English of 1611. Many think that “strait” means “straight”, “quick” means “fast”, “peculiar” means “strange” and “conversation” means “speaking”. If we are to use the KJV let us not be ignorant of the language of our own Bible. What is needed is a good dictionary which defines words of that period. Otherwise, we can easily fall into the same trap as these obscurantists, who lead themselves and others to strange doctrines.

For example, according to the fundamentalists, divine inspiration led the KJV translators to use the term “Holy Ghost” in some places and “Holy Spirit” in others. This is despite the fact that the original Greek for “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost” is in both cases Agion Pneu/ma [Agion Pneuma]. The translators of the KJV used the words “Ghost” and “Spirit” interchangeably. The former is Anglo-Saxon in origin and the latter is Latin. “Holy Ghost” is exactly the same as “Holy Spirit”. Not so, for the fundamentalists.

The following is from

http://www.kjbbn.net/is_the_holy_ghost_and_the_holy_same.htm

“Therefore, as the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are the same person also, they do NOT mean the same!  The Holy Ghost in the body of the Son is said to be the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit… They,  “the Holy Ghost” and “the Spirit” do not have the same meaning! A “ghost” IN “a bodily shape” is said to be “a spirit”. This is very important because you can not see a “ghost” without a body, or some other  physical manifestation! … To teach that  “the Holy Ghost” and “the Holy Spirit” have the same meaning, is to be in denial of the gospel!” …The Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit only mean the same to one who has reject the very words of God! Do, you have a King James Bible?”

In his article, Conies, Brass & Easter, Jack A. Moorman, writes the following:

“When prefixed with “Holy” and presented in a singular sense – generally apart from the Father and Son – the august title of the Third Person is “The Holy Ghost.”

When presented in His relationships with Father and Son, the title “Spirit” is used. A survey of all the passages (see for example, The Englishman’s Greek Concordance) shows this distinction to be maintained consistently in the Authorized Version. A possible exception is His baptizing work (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8) where “Holy Ghost” is used in connection with the Son. But as this is His primary and initial work on behalf of believers, we find the title used. From this it seems apparent that throughout much of English church history, “Holy Ghost” was considered a more elevated and exalted title than “Holy Spirit.” It is certainly the more ancient of the two, as it goes back to the very roots of the English language, whereas “Holy Spirit” did not begin to be used until the 13th century (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology).

But could there not be a deeper and providential reason for the rendering “Holy Ghost”? With the word “ghost” death and its aftermath comes immediately to mind – albeit often in a superstitious sense. Yet death does mark the word! He is the Holy Ghost and could only come after a certain death had been accomplished (John 7:39; 14:26; 16:7); and bears witness to Him ‘that liveth, and was dead’ (Rev. 1:18; Acts 4:8, 10).”

Coincidentally, the Mormons also prefer to use the KJV and make a distinction between “Holy Ghost” and  ”Holy Spirit”. In Mormonism the “Holy Ghost” is a personage, or a god, but the “Holy Spirit” is an impersonal force. Of course, this very strange doctrine  was never held by the early Church, and is not held by mainstream Christianity today.

Another champion of KJV perfectionism is G A Riplinger who came to fame through her book, New Age Bible Versions. It would take a whole book to explain and evaluate her ideas, but here are a few quotes from her “scholarly” books:

“Palmer devoted an entire chapter in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism, to disprove the idea that ‘man still has the ability to ask God’s help for salvation.’ His ‘Five Points’ form a Satanic pentagram.” New Age Bible Versions p.231.
Is Riplinger unaware of the fact that many of the KJV translators were Calvinists or is she conveniently ignoring it?

In a Pentecostal paper titled The End Times and Victorious Living, January-February 1994, Mrs. Riplinger says, “EACH DISCOVERY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF EFFORT ON MY PART, BUT OF THE DIRECT HAND OF GOD – so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, GOD AND RIPLINGER – God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”

After speaking about Christ being the Alpha and the Omega she says in The Language of the King James Bible p.79, “So English speaking Christians won’t feel left out, Jesus said, ‘from the righteous blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.’ A to Z.”

Incidentally, she thinks that “music” is still spelt “musick”. “ ‘Music’ is spelled ‘musick’ everywhere in the world except in the United States.” ibid p.79, and “‘Always’ does not always (every time) convey the same as ‘alway.’ The KJV distinguishes between these two words…” ibid p.84.

With such pseudo-scholarship in linguistics and semantics, where does that leave us? Is the KJV a perfect translation?

When we compare the KJV with itself and its previous printings and revisions we will see that in a few places there have been and still are errors and ambiguities. Corrections and improvements can be, and ought to be made, should there ever be a future revision.

The translators’ manuscripts from which the printers worked have disappeared. The first KJV Bibles printed in 1611 contained errors and even the ones today still retain some minor ones.

The first edition of 1611 came to be called the “he” version, because of a mistake in the printing of Ruth 3:15: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: And he [should have been "she"] went into the city.”

The second one printed in 1611 had Ruth 3:15 corrected, and was therefore called the “she” version. However, this edition contained its own set of errors, including Matthew 26:36, which was rendered: “Then cometh Judas [should have been "Jesus"] with them unto a place called Gethsemane.”

Several KJV Bibles published in the seventeenth century got their nicknames because of typographical errors.

The so-called Murderer’s Bible misprints “murderers” instead of the correct word “murmurers” in Jude 16. Mark 7:27 had: “Let the children first be killed” (instead of “filled”).

The Wife-Hater Bible tells a man to hate his own wife: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife also.” Of course, “wife” should read “life.”

The Adulterer’s or Wicked Bible, a 1631 King James Version, left out an essential “not” and had “Thou shalt commit adultery.” King Charles fined the printer Robert Barker the huge sum of £300 and removed his license to print Bibles.

A 1716 KJV Bible made a common typographical mistake by transposing letters.  Instead of John 8:11 reading, “Go, and sin no more,” it read, “Go and sin on more.”

The Printer’s Bible had “printers” instead of “princes” in Ps. 119:161).

Even today, one KJV may differ from another, depending upon the publisher. For example, in Jeremiah 34:16, the Oxford KJV has “whom he” while the Cambridge KJV has “whom ye”. An Oxford edition of the KJV has “fleeth” at Nahum 3:16 while a Cambridge edition has “flieth”. At 2 Chronicles 33:19, the Oxford KJV has “sins” while the Cambridge KJV has “sin”.

The New Testament (NT) of the KJV was largely based on William Tyndale’s NT. Unfortunately, in a few places instead of making improvements, the KJV translators made it worse. Here are some examples:

Hebrews 10:23 “and let us keep the profession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that promised).” [Tyndale with modernised spelling]

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised).” [KJV]

The Greek word for “hope” [elpis] was translated as “faith” in the KJV.

Luke 14:10 “Then shalt thou have praise in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” [Tyn]

“Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” [KJV]

The Greek word “doxa” [“glory”] was translated as “worship”. As the context is in reference to men, this is unfortunate.

In Rev 18:13 the Greek word “soma” was translated correctly by Tyndale as “body” whereas the KJV mistranslated it as “slave”.

Matthew 26:27 “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” [KJV] This is ambiguous. It could mean, “All of you must drink” or “finish all the drink.” The original Greek makes it clear. Tyndale’s translation is also very clear. “Drink of it every one.”

During Tyndale’s time the apostrophe denoting possession was not yet in current use, so Matthew 14:9 was translated in this was, “for his othes sake” [original spelling]. The KJV has “oath’s sake”. The apostrophe was put in the wrong place. It should have been “oaths’”, the apostophe coming after the “s” because the original Greek word [orkous] is in the plural.

Matthew 14:9 “And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.”

John 10:16 “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also must I bring that they may hear my voice and that they may be one flock and one shepherd.” [Tyn, modern spelling]

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” [KJV]

The KJV has the word “fold” appearing twice in this verse. There are in fact two different Greek words here, “aule, auvlh”/ and “poimne, poi,mnh”, respectively. The former means “a fold, enclosure, courtyard” and the latter means “a flock, especially of sheep.” Therefore, Tyndale was correct in translating “poimne” as “flock” and the KJV translators were wrong in using the word “fold”.

Tyndale translated the Greek word, “agape” as “love” in 1 Cor 13 whereas the KJV translators used the word “charity” which had various other connotations connected with almsgiving. The Greek for “alms” is “eleemosune” which is different from “agape”.

One area where the translators improved on Tyndale was by almost eliminating the word “Easter” from the NT. Tyndale used this word about 25 times to translate the Greek word “pascha”, which is in turn derived from the Hebrew “pesach”. The KJV correctly changed this to “Passover”, but left it as “Easter” in Acts 12:4 “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

Although some AV perfectionists argue that this is a reference to a pagan Babylonian festival, one can legitimately counter-argue that to Tyndale who used the expressions “paschall lambe” and “ester lambe” interchangeably [e.g. Mark 14:12], the word “Easter” had the same meaning as “Passover”. “And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer the pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him: where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?”

For more information on this see The Use of ‘Easter’ in Acts 12.4

In John 1:12 The Greek word “tekna” is used which means “children”. The KJV wrongly translates this as “sons”.

There are those who delude themselves and wish to deceive others that the KJV translators knew better than the Holy Spirit when in fact the translators themselves made no such claims (2Pet 1:21). This invariably results in faulty theology and such people who show cultic tendencies must be avoided.

A certain KJV-only perfectionist was preaching on “the Great Tribulation” from his favourite book in the Bible, Revelation. According to dispensationalists, the Bible describes different “tribulations” and the definite article “the” is necessary to describe the tribulation period during the reign of the anti-christ, the latter half of a seven-year period after the rapture. When the preacher got to Rev 7:14 “These are they which came out of great tribulation”, he hesitated. It seemed that he wanted so much to say, “The original Greek has the definite article and is better translated “thegreat tribulation” but his views on the KJV being perfect would not allow him to make this bold correction…. Eventually, he mumbled that from the Greek, putting “the” would also be correct.

Ironically, many KJV-perfectionists are also followers of Scofield’s dispensationalism. Scofield was really no friend of the AV or the Textus Receptus from which the AV is translated. In the introduction to the Scofield Bible, he wrote, “The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies…Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition…” Scofield’s notes often “correct” the AV to suit his doctrines e.g. In a note referring to 1Cor1:7 he wrote, “The expression “day of Christ,” occurs in the following passages: 1Co 1:8; 5:5; 2Co 1:14… A.V. has “day of Christ,” 2Thes 2:2 incorrectly, for “day of the Lord” …The “day of Christ” relates wholly to the reward and blessing of saints at his coming, as “day of the Lord” is connected with judgment.” Scofield Reference Bible, page 1212.

We must inform and warn members of our churches not be deceived by such fables as “KJV Perfectionism”.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Original 1611 KJV showing Exodus 21

Trinitarian Bible Society

Posted by Pavlos on

Bethel Strict Baptist Church has a long history of supporting the Trinitarian Bible Society. Mr Denton worked for TBS. The Brown family that was connected with TBS also attended Bethel sometime in the past. Bethel has always used the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. It is the most accurate English translation based on the best manuscripts i.e. Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic texts. However, it is not perfect and contains a few minor errors. 

In the April – June 2006, Issue No. 575, TBS Quarterly Record there is an article reviewing The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by the Vice Chairman, Rev B G Felce. He wrote, “This text therefore does not have all the improvements made in the translation since 1611. … The AV is not perfect. But a succession of editors have done their best to translate as exactly as possible the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments to give us the most accurate Bible available today. There is no point, except perhaps to aid scholars, in going back to the 1611 AV, which is less perfect than the AV which we already have. In God’s good providence we have the AV as the best and most accurate Bible for the church and the individual Christian.“ (p23-24) For full text of the review see QR575 – April to June 2006