Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

stick with, believe, and trust the Bible of Torrey, Moody, Sunday, the Great Awakening, the one that is responsible for "the Bible belt".

---

Ah....now I know who to blame for the rampant Arminianism in the Bible-belt, it's the KJV. Just kidding, but if Torrey, Moody, and Sunday jumped off a cliff...

But seriously, wouldn't it be better to judge a translation based upon how faithful it is to the original languages rather than who used that particular Bible? The Apostles most often used the Septuagint, but most of us don't use Bibles with Old Testaments based on the Septuaging and certainly the testimony of the Apostles is far more substantial than the testimony of Torrey, Moody, and Sunday, unless a person's faith is built on nothing less than Scofield notes and Moody Press.

Well, I'm drifting a bit from the KJV-onlyist topic but I do want to say a couple of things.

Quote:

---

Most KJVOs believe the LXX came into play within the church with W-H. The early church believed it was the apostles' OT. The Byzantine Church used the LXX as their OT (they still do). Once the LXX is allowed it demolishes the KJVOs history of transmission, i.e. the apostles used a faulty version rather than a "perfect" Bible (Hebrew OT).

---

The LXX as used by the Orthodox today is probably not the same as the Greek texts used by the Apostles. What is more ineresting is the fact that the KJV deviates from the Hebrew text at least 228 times. At least 228 times as Dr. James Price shows in his very detailed unpublished paper, the KJV follows some other ancient version (such as the Vulgate or LXX) or some rabbinic tradition or some unknown source rather than the Hebrew text. Although these changes are generally not doctrinally significant, a few of them are and it certainly destroys any notion of a perfect translation. It is certainly understandable that men with such knowledge, familiar with the Bible in various languages, would accidentally interject a familiar reading from the Vulgate.

Quote:

---

The question remains "why would the Byzantine Church who used the Majority text which underlies the KJV use the LXX?"

---

The Majority text does not underlie the KJV, although the majority text and the so-called Textus Receptus are in agreement throughout much of the New Testament. There are a number of reasons why the EO uses the LXX. First of all, they are Greek speaking. Second of all, there has always been some suspicion that the Jews corrupted the text and the Masoretic text was not to be trusted. Most of these suspicions were laid to rest with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which showed the ancient pre-Christian origin of the Masoretic text. On the other hand, some manuscripts were found which were in stronger agreement with the LXX, showing that the differences between the LXX and the Masoretic text were not necessarily due to a bad translation, but often due to use of different manuscripts.

However, the Protestant churches have rightly declared that only the Scriptures as they are found in their original languages are to be considered authentic. The EO were better able to faithfully transmit the Greek text than anyone else and there is no evidence of any large scale intentional corruption of the text, neither in the realm of addition or subtraction. The same is true of the Masoretic text.

Canon is not determined by the church but it is recognized by the church and the canon is not an empty set of books. The canon contains a text within it and God preserves His Word.