The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Are you sure that Edward Hills would disagree with the consistent evidence that shows that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']?

Edward F. Hills wrote: "the King James Version, however, is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible. Thus the influence of Tyndale's translation upon the King James Version was very strong indeed" (KJV DEFENDED, p. 215).

Hills also wrote: "A comparison of Tyndale's Version with the King James Version is said to indicate that from five sixths to nine tenths of the latter is derived from the martyred translator's work" (KJV DEFENDED, p. 214).

I think I start to understand.

Basically your belief is that all of the more recent translations are based on the Septuagint. Is that correct?

To what degree do you think the Septuagint is followed? Certainly you can't believe it was used as the dominant source, at least I wouldn't think you could think that, maybe you do. But since the verses from the Septuagint say at the end of Job aren't "added" in the modern versions, I wouldn't think it could be taken as the Septuagint over everything.

Brenton Translation of the Septuagint.
Job 42:17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. (42:17D) And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. (42:17E) And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovof the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

Job 42:17 NET.
(17) And so Job died, old and full of days.

Is an example where the modern translations clearly do not follow the Septuagint.

Anyway, could you explain.

Marv

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

[quote="andyjoneszz"]P.S. [quote]I also made it clear that the KJV was the ONLY bible in the English language TODAY, that is based on the massoretic Hebrew. As all Bibles since the 1881, Westcott/Hort secret revission are now based on the Septuagint.

The preface to the (English) Revised Version of 1881 contains this: [size=75]...link to source at bible-researcher.com â€â€

Your statements are the ones that have been shown to be inaccurate.

As already noted, even several KJV-only authors including Edward F. Hills acknowledge the great influence of Tyndale's Bible on the KJV. What is the evidence that shows that the KJV translators had available a manuscript copy of the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible?

The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible from the Latin is much more different from the KJV than is Tyndale's. Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "penance" at several verses including Matthew 3:2 and "sacrament" at several verses in Ephesians. Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2. Wycliffe's Bible has "priests" instead of "elders" at Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5.

Are you saying that because you state something that it must be true?
Where is some valid evidence that supports your statements?

[quote="Marv"]I think I start to understand.

Basically your belief is that all of the more recent translations are based on the Septuagint. Is that correct?

To what degree do you think the Septuagint is followed?

Brenton Translation of the Septuagint.
Job 42:17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam.


Marv, your quote, " I think I understand...your belief is that the more recent translations are based on the septuagint ."

That is not a belief, but an established FACT, and , my conclusion after over 40 years of studying Bibles and Biblical History, more than ten different Languages.
With the exception of the very "deceitful" NKJV, which uses a mixture of both "corrupt" Wescott/ Hort , and the "pure" textus receptus source, ( a Hybrid text, if you will) all other books in the English language , called a Bible, are baseed on the "corrupt" Septuagint for the O.t. and the 1881 W/H New Test. revission.

Your final statement about Brenton's Translation, and the Misinformation about the "Syriac Book", as well as the "Rabinical garbage" about Job descending from Esau, just had me flabbergasted !!!

Do you actually believe this junk !!!! Is your scriptural foundation so shallow, that you do not know what the Bible declares about Job.?
And you are a Moderator of this forum?? Shame on you !!!

Job was the third son of Issachar ! (Gen.46:13)
Issachar was one of the 12 Patriarchs, the 5th son born to Leah and Jacob. (Israel)
Issachar was born to Jacob when he was about 90 years old.

Job was born to Issachar , when he was about 22 years old.

Job was not the descendant of Esau !!!!!

Job was an "Isrealite", descending from Jacob. We have God's own testimony about this in Ezek.14:14,and 20., as only God's "chosen people"
the "called out", were spoken of as "righteous"

Job's time of "testing" occurred when he was about 70 years old.(about 1850 B.C.)
Job lived after his testing another 140 years. Job.42:16

The book of Job was written in this last period of his life, with the help of Moses. Job died aprox. 15 years before Israel's exodus from Egypt under Moses.

The Exodus from Egypt took place about 1695 B.C, (and not around 1450 B.C., as falsely taught by "Brainwashed scholars" )

The fact that that Job, the son of Issachar, is the Job, discussed in the Biblical book of Job, is further re-inforced by the reference to him in James5:11, by the 'head pastor' in Jerusalem, (and half brother of Jesus )

Now having "Slam Dunked" another liberal theolgical supposition of error, let me move on to discussing what I discovered on your "Net Bible"

I am shocked at what I have discovered on your "Net Bible".

In Isa. 7:14, It states; "I give you a sign, a Young woman shall have a child". What is the SIGN ???? Any young woman can have a child !!!

The sign was that a VIRGIN woud have a child. The Hebrew "ha almah", means "the Virgin". Nowhere in scripture will you find support for such an argument, that "almah" ever refers to a "Married woman"

Then these Idiots, called scholars, have the gall, to add in their footnotes,
quote; "Ultimately, ones view of the doctrine of the Virgin birth, is un-affected." UN-AFFECTED ???? Are you kidiig me?? what Moron's !!!

And Chuck Swindoll endorses this garbage ? Has he become a FOOL ??? He needs to change his last name to Swindler !!

In Acts.8:37 the same travesty takes place , by these idiots removing words from the text. Yet , Irreneus, bishop of Lyon,(2nd century) and Cyprian, (3rd century) both discuss this text, (which the idiot scholars of your " Net Bible" have removed) in great length and detail, proving it existed in the codices prior to the fraudulent 4th century Vaticanus-b, and Codex-aleph.

This "Net Bible" , weakens the Virgin birth, Denies the deity of Crist , and makes obscure his bodilly resurrection , and if you tamper with these three, you do NOT have a Bible anymore.
Your Net Bible violates all human decency, it is the worst fraud I have laid my eyes on , in a long time !!!! It is a piece of garbage, that cannot sustain spiritual life.

Morgan Sorensen

[quote="Marv"]I think I start to understand.

Basically your belief is that all of the more recent translations are based on the Septuagint. Is that correct?

To what degree do you think the Septuagint is followed?

Brenton Translation of the Septuagint.
Job 42:17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: (42:17A) and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. (42:17B) This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; (42:17C) and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam.


Marv, your quote, " I think I understand...your belief is that the more recent translations are based on the septuagint ."

That is not a belief, but an established FACT, and , my conclusion after over 40 years of studying Bibles and Biblical History, more than ten different Languages.
With the exception of the very "deceitful" NKJV, which uses a mixture of both "corrupt" Wescott/ Hort , and the "pure" textus receptus source, ( a Hybrid text, if you will) all other books in the English language , called a Bible, are baseed on the "corrupt" Septuagint for the O.t. and the 1881 W/H New Test. revission.

Your final statement about Brenton's Translation, and the Misinformation about the "Syriac Book", as well as the "Rabinical garbage" about Job descending from Esau, just had me flabbergasted !!!

Do you actually believe this junk !!!! Is your scriptural foundation so shallow, that you do not know what the Bible declares about Job.?
And you are a Moderator of this forum?? Shame on you !!!

Job was the third son of Issachar ! (Gen.46:13)
Issachar was one of the 12 Patriarchs, the 5th son born to Leah and Jacob. (Israel)
Issachar was born to Jacob when he was about 90 years old.

Job was born to Issachar , when he was about 22 years old.

Job was not the descendant of Esau !!!!!

Job was an "Isrealite", descending from Jacob. We have God's own testimony about this in Ezek.14:14,and 20., as only God's "chosen people"
the "called out", were spoken of as "righteous"

Job's time of "testing" occurred when he was about 70 years old.(about 1850 B.C.)
Job lived after his testing another 140 years. Job.42:16

The book of Job was written in this last period of his life, with the help of Moses. Job died aprox. 15 years before Israel's exodus from Egypt under Moses.

The Exodus from Egypt took place about 1695 B.C, (and not around 1450 B.C., as falsely taught by "Brainwashed scholars" )

The fact that that Job, the son of Issachar, is the Job, discussed in the Biblical book of Job, is further re-inforced by the reference to him in James5:11, by the 'head pastor' in Jerusalem, (and half brother of Jesus )

Now having "Slam Dunked" another liberal theolgical supposition of error, let me move on to discussing what I discovered on your "Net Bible"

I am shocked at what I have discovered on your "Net Bible".

In Isa. 7:14, It states; "I give you a sign, a Young woman shall have a child". What is the SIGN ???? Any young woman can have a child !!!

The sign was that a VIRGIN woud have a child. The Hebrew "ha almah", means "the Virgin". Nowhere in scripture will you find support for such an argument, that "almah" ever refers to a "Married woman"

Then these Idiots, called scholars, have the gall, to add in their footnotes,
quote; "Ultimately, ones view of the doctrine of the Virgin birth, is un-affected." UN-AFFECTED ???? Are you kidiig me?? what Moron's !!!

And Chuck Swindoll endorses this garbage ? Has he become a FOOL ??? He needs to change his last name to Swindler !!

In Acts.8:37 the same travesty takes place , by these idiots removing words from the text. Yet , Irreneus, bishop of Lyon,(2nd century) and Cyprian, (3rd century) both discuss this text, (which the idiot scholars of your " Net Bible" have removed) in great length and detail, proving it existed in the codices prior to the fraudulent 4th century Vaticanus-b, and Codex-aleph.

This "Net Bible" , weakens the Virgin birth, Denies the deity of Crist , and makes obscure his bodilly resurrection , and if you tamper with these three, you do NOT have a Bible anymore.
Your Net Bible violates all human decency, it is the worst fraud I have laid my eyes on , in a long time !!!! It is a piece of garbage, that cannot sustain spiritual life.

Morgan Sorensen

You seem to misunderstand.

Brentons translation is an English translation of the Septuagint. My quote is simply a quote of Brenton's translation which accurately reflects the ending of Job in the Septuagint.

It speaks to your contention that the modern translations are based on the Septuagint because they don't contain those verses. If they were primarily Septuagint based, they would.

I would think in all those years of study you would recognize what's probably one of the largest textual differences in the Septuagint.

Marv

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

Virgin birth.
Matthew 1:23-25 NET. "Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel," which means "God with us." (24) When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, (25) but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

Deity of Christ.

John 1:1 NET. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

John 1:14 NET. Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory â€â€

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

I have read your assertion several times now that Westcott & Hort executed some secret manoeuvre in 1881 that caused every OT translation thereafter to be based on the LXX and not the Masoretic text. So far, you haven't given any evidence for this. Would you enlighten us, please? I'm extremely curious to know.

By the way, my quote from the 1881 RV preface was perfectly genuine. I got it online to save typing, but it's identical to the wording in my elderly hard copy.

Also by the way, the phrase received text was in use in Victorian times to refer to the Masoretic text as well as the NT base text for the KJV, though it has come to refer only to the latter since then. Received in this context simply means that which has come down to us from the past; one could talk about the received text of any ancient work.

Put a lid on it by all means, Morgan, if that's what you want to do. But please consider this: several people have now posted hard evidence that tells against the points you're making, and all you have done in reply is to repeat the same assertions a little louder.

If you can't actually answer these simple pieces of evidence, what makes you think that your arguments still have truth in them?

Do you really think that this is what you ought to be spending your life doing?

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog

Smite ho, brother!

(I wonder what he said...)

andyjonezz said :



Bravissimo! So well put it deserves to be repeated.