why do kjv only people deny existence of LXX and influnce of vulgate on kjv?

[Daniel_Marsh]

why do kjv only people deny existence of LXX and influnce of vulgate on kjv?

What arguments do they come up with by denying the existence of the LXX in Jesus day, and denying that the apostles quoted from it in the gospels?

Why do they deny the influnce of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Translation?

What are the major influnces of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Version?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Faulty Logic

The faulty logic she employs is to assume that Greek manuscripts are not to be judged by scientific evidence and the best processes available to determine the validity and age of a manuscript, but by where they were found, with what and by whom. However, the same arguments could be used against the King James. For example, the King James translators relied heavily upon the Latin and often consulted the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was the Bible of the apostate, Roman Catholic church. Therefore, by Riplinger’s logic, the King James is suspect. I do not believe this line of reasoning, but it is at least as valid as Riplinger’s.

The King James translators relied heavily on the Latin. Ironically, she uses the fact that modern translations do not use "Lucifer"22 in Isaiah 14 and “Diana” in Acts 19 to show that they are New Age and trying to confuse people about Satan’s plots. Yet the main reason these words are found in the King James is that they are Latin. Going back to the Hebrew and Greek to translate to English does not lead to the use of Latin terms. She might as well criticize the new versions for not using the Roman Catholic Bible in their translations.

cicministry.org/commentary/issue41.htm

jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/defend.htm
geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html
geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html
geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did NOT quote from a Pre-Christian LXX.

#1. The Letter of Aristeas. Other sites to consult which debunk the idea of an widespread pre-Christian LXX version, and show the utter spuriousness of the Letter of Aristeas.

Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones has written a very imformative article dealing with the evidence and history of the alleged pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.

floydjones.org/LXX.pdf

Likewise, David W. Daniels has written a concise and well thought out article exposing the spurious nature of the claims made for a pre-Christian Septuagint version, titled “What is the Septuagint”. He goes into specific detail about the alleged Letter of Aristeas, which is the primary “historical” document used to buttress the idea that a formalized LXX was actually put together. -

scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm

Many LXX defenders who quote people like Justin Martyr, Philo, or Josephus, in support of a pre-Christian LXX version, overlook the fact that these men are merely parroting the same information found in the Letter of Aristeas. None of them have any independent evidence of a pre-Christian LXX.

For a scholarly work by Professor Dr. James Davila regarding the “quotes” of certain church fathers regarding the LXX please see:

geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html

geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

 

[MrS]

Daniel… you would sure be a great addition to the Tiber Swim Team!

.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

why do kjv only people deny existence of LXX and influnce of vulgate on kjv?

What arguments do they come up with by denying the existence of the LXX in Jesus day, and denying that the apostles quoted from it in the gospels?

Why do they deny the influnce of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Translation?

What are the major influnces of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Version?

Because they read certain passages in the AV-KJV as Divine guarantees that the AV is “God’s preserved Word”.​

This is a good source of KJV-only argument: chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/resources.asp

The Answer Book by Dr. Sam Gipp.

Understandable History of the Bible by Dr. Sam Gipp.

avpublications.com/avnew/home.html - Gail Riplinger’s site

A brief history of the Bible, from various totally unreliable sources, follows:

• Egypt = evil (see various OT passages, & ignore others)
• Origen taught in Alexandria in Egypt
• He influenced Eusebius
• Eusebius was in close contact with Constantine
• Constantine was the first Pope
• Popes are eeeeevil
• So Babylon the Great spread Origen’s-Eusebius’-Constantine’s occultic Bible so as to destroy the Church
• Then, years later…
• the beast-worshipping KJV-hating Institution
• got together with the JWs
• in order to destroy God’s preserved version
• by getting Newman to become to become a Jesuit
• so he could infiltrate the Church of England
• with the occultists Westcott & Hort
• so they could spread the evil Origen-invented Egyptian God-hated Alexandrian (per)version called the Septuagint
• in an effort to smother God’s true Bible
• which had been preserved from the Pope-Emperor Constantine
• by Christians here & there
• who hid from the Roman Institution AKA the Papacy
  That is the Chick version of events in a nutshell.

So now you know

You couldn’t make it up…

 

[Calvinator]

why do kjv only people deny existence of LXX and influnce of vulgate on kjv?

What arguments do they come up with by denying the existence of the LXX in Jesus day, and denying that the apostles quoted from it in the gospels?

Why do they deny the influnce of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Translation?

What are the major influnces of the Latin Vulgate on the King James Version?

I’m not sure how many posters here will check out this book recomendation…but James White wrote an excellent book on the KJV only movement. I suspect he isn’t very popular around here.

 

[exoflare]

I’m not sure how many posters here will check out this book recomendation…but James White wrote an excellent book on the KJV only movement. I suspect he isn’t very popular around here.

It might help for you to actually name the book.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Daniel… you would sure be a great addition to the Tiber Swim Team!

.

I tend to sink like a rock.

Yesterday, while researching this, I came upon a site that lists variants in the greek text behind the King James, today I can’t find the site, any suggestions? Has anyone else seen sites about variants in the TR?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

(B) THE EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS COMPARED THEIR DIFFERENCES LISTED

The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) [Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 56-60,242-63] and Hoskier (1890) [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, by H.C. Hoskier, London: David Nutt, 1890, Appendices B & C]. The following are some of the most important of these differences.

Luke 2:22

“their purification” – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.

“her purification” – Beza, King James, Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).

Luke 17:36

“two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left” – Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.

John 1:28

“Bethabara beyond Jordan” – Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic.

“Bethany beyond Jordan” – Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.

John 16:33

“shall have tribulation” – Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate.

“have tribulation” – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.

Rom. 8:11

“by His Spirit that dwelleth in you” – Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic.

“because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you” – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including BD, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

Rom. 12:11

“serving the Lord” – Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

“serving the time” – Erasmus 2345, Stephanus, D G.

1 Tim. 1:4

“godly edifying” – Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

“dispensation of God” – Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.

Heb. 9:1

Here Stephanus reads “first tabernacle,” with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit “tabernacle” with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits “tabernacle” and regards “covenant” as implied.

James 2:18

“without thy works” – Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.

“by thy works” – Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.

This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!

wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm

 

[MrS]

This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!

wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm

wow… sure glad I know of some witnesses ( and those whom they passed on to ) to what was said, and what it means…

 

[Subrosa]

Has anyone here read the preface to the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Do a ggogle on it and you’ll get a ton of links…

Anyhow, here’s what it says…

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 St. 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.

Please notice that the original KJV spoke of the Seventy Greek scholars who translated the Hebrew scripture.

Now ain’t that a kick in the pants?

Subrosa

 

[lak611]

Has anyone here read the preface to the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Do a ggogle on it and you’ll get a ton of links…

Anyhow, here’s what it says…

Please notice that the original KJV spoke of the Seventy Greek scholars who translated the Hebrew scripture.

Now ain’t that a kick in the pants?

Subrosa

If you actually have the KJV 1611 edition, it’s in the Translators to the Reader on the first paragraph of the fourth page.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

“THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.”

av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

A.V. Bible Preface

A REPRINT OF
THE ORIGINAL PREFACE
TO THE
KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION
1611

---

§ 7 [The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek.]

• 1 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; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] 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.

• 2 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 Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure **the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

• 3 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.
**

• 4 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.

• 5 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.

• 6 For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.

• 7 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.
**
• 8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men?
**
• 9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.
**
• 10 This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy** was allowed to pass for current.

• 11 Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews.

• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.

• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.

---

jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

:blond

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.

• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.

• 14 Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) [Epiphan. de mensur, et ponderibus.] but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. [See S.August. 2°. de doctrin, Christian. c. 15° Novell, diatax, 146.]

• 15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace. [profhtikhV wsper caritoV perilamyashV autouV.]

• 16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
**
• 17 This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.
**

---

§ 8 [Translation out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin.]

• 1 There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many countries of the West, yea of the South, East, and North, spake or understood Latin, being made provinces to the Romans.

• 2 But now the Latin translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S.Augustine.) [S.Augustin. de doctr. Christ, lib. 2.cap.11.]

• 3 Again, they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy.

• 4 This moved S.Hierome, a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountains themselves; which he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgement, industry, and faithfulness, that he hath for ever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.

---

jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

:blond

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If you actually have the KJV 1611 edition, it’s in the Translators to the Reader on the first paragraph of the fourth page.

thanks for point that out.

So, we have the King James translators admiting to employing the LXX and Vulgate along with older English translations.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the
New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew text

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Occasions where a Masoretic Reading Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Septuagint

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=LXX+plus+quotes+old+testament

Old Testament Quotations

Some Notes on the Apostles’ usage of the Septuagint

Quotations of and Allusions to the Old Testament
In the New Testament
Compiled and annotated by Michael D. Marlowe

google.com/search?q=Old+Testament+Quotations+in+New+Testament&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

bible-researcher.com/nicole.html

kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

bible-researcher.com/quote01.html

Get a copy of this to compare for yourself,

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Paperback) by Gregory Chirichigno (Author), Gleason Leonard, Jr. Archer (Author)
amazon.com/Old-Testament-Quotations-New-Complete/dp/1597520403

 

[lak611]

Get a copy of this to compare for yourself,

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Paperback) by Gregory Chirichigno (Author), Gleason Leonard, Jr. Archer (Author)
amazon.com/Old-Testament-Quotations-New-Complete/dp/1597520403

Daniel, do you have this book? I did not see any customer reviews. I would like to know what you think about the book if you have it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I read it a while back via interlibrary loan. It was well worth the read in that it printed out the hebrew and greek texts that were being used. He went by OT order of quotes using four columns.

The first two columns were the MT Hebrew, and LXX Greek of the OT text in question. The third column was the greek for the NT text. and the fourth column had notes, commentary.

Key words may have been underlined or bolded in the greek and hebrew texts. I don’t think he did anything at all with the latin vulgate in this.

A simpler work in English only that one can use is

Helps For Translators – Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament by Robert G. Bratcher ( American – United Bible Societies ).

Bratcher uses NT order of texts all in English. On the left is the English of the NT text in question, with key words underlined. On the right is in English translation for both the MT hebrew and LXX greek, words underlined. Any commentary is in the form of footnotes at the bottom of each page. This work is about 76 pages long.

 

[Subrosa]

Here’s a link to site that compares the New Testament with the Maspretic and LXX.

kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTCHART.HTM

Sub

 

[lak611]

I read it a while back via interlibrary loan. It was well worth the read in that it printed out the hebrew and greek texts that were being used. He went by OT order of quotes using four columns.

The first two columns were the MT Hebrew, and LXX Greek of the OT text in question. The third column was the greek for the NT text. and the fourth column had notes, commentary.

Key words may have been underlined or bolded in the greek and hebrew texts. I don’t think he did anything at all with the latin vulgate in this.

A simpler work in English only that one can use is

Helps For Translators – Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament by Robert G. Bratcher ( American – United Bible Societies ).

Bratcher uses NT order of texts all in English. On the left is the English of the NT text in question, with key words underlined. On the right is in English translation for both the MT hebrew and LXX greek, words underlined. Any commentary is in the form of footnotes at the bottom of each page. This work is about 76 pages long.

Would you recommend Chirichigno and Archer’s book or Bratcher’s book?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Would you recommend Chirichigno and Archer’s book or Bratcher’s book?

If you are dealing with a person who is a scholar which knows greek or hebrew, use Chirichigno and Archer’s book.

If you are dealing with the average joe who only knows English, then Bratcher’s book is most useful.

So, most of the time I would recommend using Bratcher, since a scholar can take his book and open a copy of the Hebrew MT, and Greek LXX text for himself. But, recommend C & A book to him to save time.

So, go with Bratcher’s book.