Bibliography And Glossary

 

Josiahs Scott, Josiahs@trueconnection.org, www.TrueConnection.org

10/2 – 10/19/09; 11/25 – 12/30/09; 1/16/10; 3/25/10; 4/1/10-7/9/10; 9/27/10-9/29/10; 10/5/10-11/24/10; 12/1/10-12/6/10; 12/9/10; 12/13/10; 12/18/10; 12/24/10-12/25/10; 1/8/11; 1/12/11-1/15/11; 2/11/11; 2/15/11-2/17/11; 3/1/11-3/2/11; 3/22/11; 3/31/11; 4/16/11; 4/27/11; (5/11/11-5/12/11); 5/13/11; 7/29/11; 8/19/11-8/20/11; 8/29/11; 9/23/11; 10/25/11; 2/13/12; 10/1/12

 

Note: this work is particularly prone to change drastically depending on what year you view and or print it. Please keep checking back online for the most official and up-to-date version of this Bibliography.

 

>> Additions/ TODO!

>>>> Problems started: GNT

 

>> read more on HCSB & NCV

>> add Geneva Bible 1599 – Calvinistic (as opposed o the KJV)

>> move Mat_4: to a basic beginning statement

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

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Worldwide-English-New-Testament-WE/

 

 

Contents

Bibliography And Glossary. 1

General Explanations. 1

Bible Book Abbreviations. 1

Bible Versions, in General 2

Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations. 2

LXX.. 3

MT.. 4

DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls. 5

DSS Bible. 6

HOT.. 6

GNT – Greek New Testament 6

IGNT.. 7

HNT.. 8

Latin Vulgate. 8

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use. 8

Purpose and Explanation. 8

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use. 8

An Explanation On The Nature And Current State Of The Data So Far 9

An Explanation for the Following Chart 9

Book by Book OT Source Text Summary. 9

Data Arranged by New Testament Agreement 13

Bible Translations and Versions. 13

Jos.Trans. 14

Geneva Bible. 14

KJV.. 14

KJVA.. 14

KJV-1611. 14

KJB.. 14

KJVCNT.. 14

KJ2000. 14

NKJV.. 15

NIV, TNIV, NIrV.. 15

ESV.. 15

HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible. 15

EMTV.. 15

CAB.. 16

DRB.. 16

Darby. 16

Brenton. 17

Bishops. 17

ASV.. 17

NASB/ NASV.. 17

ALT.. 17

YLT.. 17

WEB.. 17

MKJV.. 17

LITV.. 17

SRV.. 17

NAB.. 17

NETS. 18

GLB.. 18

Bible Paraphrases. 18

Paraphrases, In General 19

What Are Paraphrases?. 19

TLB.. 20

NLT.. 20

MSG.. 20

GNB, TEV.. 21

CEV.. 21

“GOD'S WORD”. 21

NCV – New Century Version. 21

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. 22

Strong’s. 22

How to Read Strong’s. 22

Berry Greek-English Lexicon. 22

Word Study. 22

RMAC.. 23

ALS. 23

Latin to English. 24

Webster's Dictionary. 24

MLA.. 24

Vine’s. 24

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. 24

The Catholic Encyclopedia. 25

Wikipedia. 25

Commentaries. 25

Talmud. 25

Barnes. 25

Clarke. 25

Lightfoot 25

Geneva. 26

Gill 26

Henry. 26

JFB.. 26

K&D.. 26

PNT.. 26

Psalms. 26

RWP. 26

Scofield. 26

TSK.. 26

WEN.. 26

Early Church Resources. 26

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 26

Others. 27

General Glossary of Terminology Used. 27

Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical Books. 27

De-education. 27

e-Sword. 27

e-Sword – Free Resources. 27

e-Sword Compatible. 27

Koine Greek. 28

Lexicon. 28

Martin Luther 28

NT.. 30

Origen. 30

OT – Old Testament 30

Pseudonym.. 30

Proprietary Bible Versions. 30

 

 

 

General Explanations

Purpose Statement

This is my universal Bibliography and Glossary for all of my Scriptural projects; it is a general, overall definer of many of the resources and terminology that I often use in my Scriptural studies and writings. What started out as a simple bibliography, became almost a “Bible Study” in and of itself, especially in terms of studying the over-all representation of the Bible in English. I aspire for these things to be of benefit to anyone interested in knowing over-all truth about versions of the Bible, as well as critical resources and terms for studying it.

 

Only the Bible Has My Complete Approval

In general, please don’t take any of my use or quotations of any of the following resources to be an indication of an over-all approval of any of them at all. Sometimes works are useful for information, while the vessel that was used to compile that information was significantly defiled. In general, the only works that you should understand to have my complete approval are those that I consider perfectly Divine: I attribute absolute and complete Divine approval to the original Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testaments. Other versions, dictionaries, and or commentaries about these things are very often imperfect or downright tainted representations of these things in English or other languages.

 

The Use of Quotes from e-Sword

When listing and defining the resources in this bibliography that are used in my writings, I use many quotations from the information that is available through e-Sword (especially from the “Bible,” “Commentary” and “Dictionary” dropdown menus, under “Information”). These e-Sword quotations sometimes have a few formatting changes, and/or added links to define terminology as laid out in this bibliography, and all of these quotes found through e-Sword are marked with an asterisk (*).

 

Disclaimer

I am not done researching on every entry in this bibliography. Although I am convinced that I am preaching the Gospel even in the midst of this bibliography, my goal is to constantly be eager towards truth, so please contact me if you think that you may have found more complete answers to some of the challenging difficulties that I have presented here.

 

Back to TOP

 

Bible Book Abbreviations

This may often be taken for granted, but one of the most basic “tools” in studying and referencing the Scriptures, is the abbreviating of the names of the books of the Bible. For the sake of those who are not used to these types of practices, I give here the common abbreviations that I use for referencing the books of the Bible throughout my writings:

 

e-Sword Format

Josiahs' Preferred Format

Book Name

Gen_

Gen

Genesis

Exo_

Exo

Exodus

Lev_

Lev

Leviticus

Num_

Num

Numbers

Deu_

Deu

Deuteronomy

Jos_

Josh

Joshua

Jdg_

Jdg

Judges

Rth_

Ruth

Ruth

1Sa_

1Sam

1 Samuel

2Sa_

2Sam

2 Samuel

1Ki_

1King

1 Kings

2Ki_

2King

2 Kings

1Ch_

1Chr

1 Chronicles

2Ch_

2Chr

2 Chronicles

Ezr_

Ezra

Ezra

Neh_

Neh

Nehemiah

Est_

Est

Esther

Job_

Job

Job

Psa_

Ps

Psalms

Pro_

Pro

Proverbs

Ecc_

Ecc

Ecclesiastes

Son_

Song

Song of Solomon

Isa_

Isa

Isaiah

Jer_

Jer

Jeremiah

Lam_

Lam

Lamentations

Eze_

Ezk

Ezekiel

Dan_

Dan

Daniel

Hos_

Hos

Hosea

Joe_

Jol

Joel

Amo_

Amo

Amos

Oba_

Obd

Obadiah

Jon_

Jona

Jonah

Mic_

Mic

Micah

Nah_

Nah

Nahum

Hab_

Hab

Habakkuk

Zep_

Zeph

Zephaniah

Hag_

Hag

Haggai

Zec_

Zech

Zechariah

Mal_

Mal

Malachi

Mat_

Mat

Matthew

Mar_

Mk

Mark

Luk_

Lk

Luke

Joh_

Joh

John

Act_

Acts

Acts

Rom_

Rom

Romans

1Co_

1Cor

1 Corinthians

2Co_

2Cor

2 Corinthians

Gal_

Gal

Galatians

Eph_

Eph

Ephesians

Php_

Phil

Philippians

Col_

Col

Colossians

1Th_

1Thes

1 Thessalonians

2Th_

2Thes

2 Thessalonians

1Ti_

1Tim

1 Timothy

2Ti_

2Tim

2 Timothy

Tit_

Tit

Titus

Phm_

Phil

Philemon

Heb_

Heb

Hebrews

Jas_

Jas

James

1Pe_

1Pet

1 Peter

2Pe_

2Pet

2 Peter

1Jn_

1Jn

1 John

2Jn_

2Jn

2 John

3Jn_

3Jn

3 John

Jud_

Jud

Jude

Rev_

Rev

Revelation

Tob_

Tob

Tobit

Jdt_

Jdth

Judith

Wis_

Wis

Wisdom

Sir_

Sir

Sirach

Bar_

Bar

Baruch

1Ma_

1Mac

1 Maccabees

2Ma_

2Mac

2 Maccabees

 

Back to TOP

 

Bible Versions, in General

Most of the Bible versions that I may use and compare most frequently are freely available in e-Sword Bible Software. Below, I have included the notes about the e-Sword versions I use at times (some more than others), as well as the other versions that I may use from time to time which are not yet available through this software.

 

Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations

The entries that follow attempt to present some of the basics about the original and the ancient versions of the Bible in other languages that help reveal to us what the most accurate representation of the Scriptures is for us in English today. While I think I cover many exciting and detailed insights about these original and ancient texts, the main thing that I want to do before I present the information in the following entries, is to give you some preliminary thoughts about the text of the Old Testament.

    I have had the difficulty of running into many challenges when researching the ancient source texts of the Old Testament, and in a few places, I am forced to pass on some of these difficult questions to my readers as well.  As a result of these challenges in seeking to find the most accurate text of the Old Testament, I often have to use different versions of the Old Testament than what most people are commonly using today, particularly when the New Testament quotes from them instead of what we usually use.

    Some of the following entries in this bibliography are aimed at explaining some of the choices within my Bible projects that I have been compelled to make. Probably one of the most defining of these choices that I have had to make when quoting the Old Testament is to frequently prioritize (or “prefer”) the reading of the LXX (Greek Old Testament) over the MT (the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament).

 

LXX

- the oldest documents (Palio Hebrew)

- modern christianity is following is still mostly in the footsteps of the wicked reformers, and the church has left it up to secular researchers to correct the protestant idea that the 70 messed up the translation

- Even though the dead sea scrolls have proved the reformers dead wrong, we still continue to use the MT

- LXX is oldest complete copy of OT in any language

- people debate how much of the lxx was originally included, and some (with the Jewish Talmud) affirm that it was only the torah, but Jesus, Paul  and the rest of the apostles approved of books well beyond the first 5 books, on into the contents of the Maccabees

- “Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text (although the majority of these variations are extremely minor, e.g. grammatical changes, spelling differences or missing words, and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs)

 

The LXX, or Septuagint, is the first, official Koine Greek Translation of The ancient Hebrew Old Testament, (including most of what Protestants call “the Apocrypha”), and it is by far the oldest version of the entire Old Testament that we still have available to us today.

    Like the Latin term “Septuagint” (Interpretatio septuaginta virorum), “LXX” is the Roman number “70,” and both of these references to “70” stand for the 70* Jewish scribes who were sent as a delegation of the leading translators of Israel to Alexandria Egypt by royal request of Ptolemy, King of Egypt, around roughly 200 BC, to translate the original Hebrew into the first official and complete Greek Old Testament. [* note: some sources say it was 72 translators].

    Contrary to the shallow and unreasonable claims and conclusions of much of modern uninformed and de-educating critique, this official work of translating the ancient Hebrew Old Testament was done with the most scrupulous, diligent, accurate, and even Divine care, as originally believed by the Jews, and even taught by Jesus (see Greek of Mat_5:18 as quoted below under “MT”), and then confirmed by the special use of Jesus and the Apostles, and reaffirmed by the consistent testimony of essentially every truly respectable early Church leader.

    We have this great approval for the LXX, at least in its original form. And although the current versions we use today have apparently had changes introduced into at least many of the books just as well as the MT (Masoretic Text), still, even in its present form (with apparently even a few books added to the so-called “Apocrypha” in some cases) when compared with all of the other available ancient versions of the OT, the LXX still most closely matches the majority of the NT quotes of the OT. When it comes to Jesus and the Apostles, the New Testament most often quotes directly from the Greek Septuagint (not the Hebrew MT that we usually use) whenever quoting the Old Testament, and this can become particularly noticeable when there are significant differences between the two, and the New Testament still prefers to use what we now only commonly find in the Greek Old Testament and sometimes in a number of other confirming texts!

 

If (at least in the original form) Jesus, all of the Apostles, and their immediate successors put their approval on this most esteemed translation, how can we not?

 

One of many examples where The New Testament References or Quotes the LXX over the MT is Found in Acts 15

 

Act_15:13, Act_15:15-16 KJV …James answered, saying… 15  as it is written,  16  After this I will return…

 

New Testament

LXX  (Greek)

Old Testament

MT  (Hebrew)

Old Testament

Act_15:17 KJV That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Amo_9:12 CAB  that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, may earnestly seek Me, says the Lord who does all these things.

Amo_9:12 KJV  That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

 

 

Adam Clark Does a very Good Job Explaining This Discrepancy

 

“That the residue of men might seek - Instead of this, the Hebrew has, That they may possess the remnant of Edom. Now it is evident that, in the copy from which the Seventy translated, they found ידרשו  yidreshu, they might seek, instead of יירשו  yireshu, they may possess, where the whole difference between the two words is the change of the י  yod for a ד  daleth, which might be easily done; and they found אדם  adam, man, or men, instead of אדום  Edom, the Idumeans, which differs from the other only by the insertion of ו  vau between the two last letters. None of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi confirm these readings, in which the Septuagint, Arabic, and St. James agree. It shows, however, that even in Jerusalem, and in the early part of the apostolic age, the Septuagint version was quoted in preference to the Hebrew text; or, what is tantamount, was quoted in cases where we would have thought the Hebrew text should have been preferred… But God was evidently preparing the way of the Gospel by bringing this venerable version into general credit and use; which was to be the means of conveying the truths of Christianity to the whole Gentile world. How precious should this august and most important version be to every Christian, and especially to every Christian minister! A version, without which no man ever did or ever can critically understand the New Testament. And I may add that, without the assistance afforded by this version, there never could have been a correct translation of the Hebrew text, since that language ceased to be vernacular, into any language. Without it, even St. Jerome could have done little in translating the Old Testament into Latin; and how much all the modern versions owe to St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which owes so much to the Septuagint, most Biblical scholars know.”

(Clarke on Act_15:17)

 

>> should I also add Psalm 14 here as an obvious example??

Synaticus:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=26&chapter=14&lid=en&side=r&verse=2&zoomSlider=5

 

We should take note that this posture of preferring the LXX over the MT (as we have just seen in Act_15:16-17) is repeated over and over again with the majority of all quotes throughout the New Testament.

 

At this point, it can be very helpful if you make sure to read what I’ve written in this bibliography on the MT to get the rest of the story on the LXX in light of the MT.

 

The Septuagint versions that I use and reference are:

(1) “Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), edited by Alfred Rahlfs.” *;

 

(2) Other LXX variations;

 

(3) Although I do not necessarily think it to be the most accurate version of the LXX, I also look directly at the original “Codex Sinaiticus” at times.

See: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

 

English Translations of the LXX:

The primary ways to view the LXX for those who cannot read Greek is through English translations such as Brenton (1851), The Apostle’s Bible, and the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). All three of these English versions of the LXX are specifically discussed later in this bibliography. In addition to these three, there is also that of Charles Thomson (1808) and the update to this by C. A. Muses (1954).

 

View the Greek of the LXX at:

www.TrueConnection.org/goto/lxx

 

Get the LXX in Greek for e-Sword as a free download at:

www.e-sword.net/bibles.html#lxx

 

Compare:

MT, HOT, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS,

 

MT

When referring to the Old Testament “MT” is an abbreviation for “Masoretic Text,” which is the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament. This means that the MT is used as the Hebrew source text for the Old Testament with the vast majority of all Bible versions in use today.

 

While Hebrew is indeed the original language of the Old Testament, the “Masoretic Text” is the current version of such Hebrew texts most commonly used today as the Hebrew Old Testament.

    While the extreme scrupulousness of Hebrew scribes has been practiced for many, many years, and seems to surpass any other effort in history to preserve any other text, tragically, such diligence has not existed at every stage of textual transmission. At some point long before the diligence of the Masoretes and their diligent predecessors, at a time before even the New Testament was written, variations were introduced into the Hebrew text so that, to this day, the current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic Text) is in many places still inconsistent with the generally more accurate copies of the LXX, and as a result of this, New Testament quotes of the Old Testament often don’t exactly match when referring to the current Hebrew Old Testament. So although the Masoretes seem to have been very diligent to copy the Hebrew Old Testament, they unfortunately copied some of the wrong things because of the variations that were introduced previous to their efforts. They seem to have accurately reproduced what they had but what they had was not completely accurate to begin with. The New Testament proves this when quoting the OT, (and I have illustrated this under “LXX” previously)

    Though there are exceptions to the normal practice, it was the LXX (or its Hebrew source text) in most cases which was preferred by Jesus, the Apostles, the early Church, and even most of the earlier versions of Judaism, when teaching on the Old Testament. Originally, writers frequently preferred a Hebrew source text closer to the LXX (as can often be seen throughout the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Hebrews, which were both reportedly written originally in Hebrew), or else they even eventually preferred the respected LXX itself, rather than using a Hebrew text with the variations we now have in the Masoretic Text.

    It is evident that these earlier alternative Hebrew versions of what we now have as the Masoretic Text became officially standardized among the Jews at what is called, “the Council of Jamnia” (around 90 AD), during which they also decided to corporately and officially oppose the early Christians by excommunicating them from their synagogues. These two verdicts seem to have somewhat been carried out in conjunction with each other: (1) get rid of the Christians (2) get rid of the Bible version that supports their message, and this seems to have been done even against the Old Testament itself at least partly because (as a number of early church writers somewhat put it) the LXX (including its “extra books”) was evidently too successful and potent at confirming Jesus to be the Christ when compared to alternative Hebrew texts.

    It wasn’t until Judaism corporately and officially rejected Christianity that a Hebrew source text was officially standardized for use among the Jews, which was different from the LXX, and was eventually used for making a somewhat less “Christian-friendly” Greek translation of the Old Testament to replace the LXX among the Jews. This newer Greek translation came to be called, “Aquila” because it was translated by Aquila of Sinope around 130 AD.

    So during the earliest years of original Christianity, at the close of the times of the last of the twelve Apostles, the Jews standardized the wrong version of the Hebrew Old Testament, and tragically, the Masoretes diligently copied this text, and as a result, it has been handed down through the Jews to us unto this day. After Christianity apostated into Catholicism (especially after the early 300s) the church eventually started preferring the MT by means of the Latten Vulgate (after the early 400s). This is why we have eventually come to the point that we do not commonly use an Old Testament that matches the LXX (like more ancient Judaism, original Christianity and the New Testament did), and this is why our New Testament quotes of the Old Testament now often clearly don’t match.

    It is difficult to say exactly how, why or when the Masoretic Text became different from the Hebrew source text that the LXX was translated from, and this is even more challenging because the LXX has also changed over the years, although not as much as the Masoretic Text.  <<textual variation is part of God’s Judgment rather than having the standard in the temple that Moses spoke of: Deu_31:24-26; 2Ch_34:14, 2Ch_34:15-28>> But somehow, after this, the Hebrew text that the LXX was based on was pushed to the side, forgotten, and essentially lost.

    I have not yet been able to determine if this shift away from an LXX type of Hebrew text happened simply because the Masoretic Text was standardized (around 90 AD), or if the LXX Hebrew was largely lost about 20 years previous to these “Jamnia meetings” when Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Could both of these types of factors (and or other unknown details) have come into play in losing the Hebrew source behind the LXX? Whatever the case, all of this has left us with only parts of the type of Hebrew source text that was used by the LXX to be discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (and in a few other places). This evidence in support of a Hebrew original behind the LXX, to a great deal includes many of the older Hebrew fragments (in “Paleo-Hebrew”) of the OT found in this archeological discovery, and this evidence is much greater than some people have misrepresented it at times:

 

These manuscripts have also helped to realign scholars' assessments of the value of the ancient Septuagint translation. Traditionally, when the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic Text (which had been considered the Hebrew original), the Septuagint was routinely thought to be a “free” translation (or even a paraphrase, or just plain wrong). The Hebrew manuscripts of Samuel found at Qumran, however, very often agree with the Septuagint when it differs from the Masoretic Text. This demonstrates that the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text form similar to that of the Qumran manuscripts. The problem in assessing the Septuagint, as with so many historical documents, had been with scholars’ vision and criteria, not with the data. The Septuagint, of course, just like the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and every other ancient manuscript tradition, does have its share of errors. But the important lesson here is that the Septuagint is not a free or false rendering, but rather a generally faithful translation of its Hebrew source.

(DSS Bible, Samuel [Introduction], p. 214, second paragraph)

 

And this discovery helps at least partly confirm that original Christianity was right all along in defending the LXX, even though they did not have this evidence to support their stance. Things became difficult for the early Christians when these discrepancies became an increasing issue with the Jews mocking the Christians and accusing them of using a poorly mistranslated version to prove that Jesus was the Christ (initially starting after 90 AD, and it seems to be even more so in the 200s and 300s). But though Jesus’ original assemblies of disciples uniformly stood faithfully without this evidence, we should stand even more firmly with it.

>> and perhaps the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament as well?

    I am convinced that there is a more complete Hebrew source text that would agree more precisely with the LXX (and naturally, the New Testament) since this is certainly what Jesus is referring to in reference to the Hebrew and Greek of the Law (ἰῶτα ἓνμία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου” - Mat_5:18).  But while I believe that such a Hebrew text exists somewhere, I have not found it yet, and am still searching for it, and it seems that others are too.

    Everything that I have read about source texts and their variations seems to universally confirm all of these basic facts that I have presented to you in the previous paragraphs, yet to this day, contrary to early Church practice, most everyone, christian, Jew and most others alike, consider the Masoretic Text to be the primary source text that people ought to use and translate from, as though they simply ignored all of these factors.

 

>> Personal Notes: make above Mat quote more clear /\

 

Compare:

HOT, LXX, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS, GNT

 

Also Compare:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

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

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

www.hebrewbibles.com/tanakh.html

 

DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are a very important collection of about 972 ancient documents discovered from 1946 to 1956 that were preserved in eleven caves in the Judean desert around Qumran (northwest of the Dead Sea), by a strict sect of Judaism. Other than the LXX, these Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek discoveries are the oldest known copies of books from the Bible and ancient Judaism, since most people date the documents long before the New Testament, as early as 150 BC (although some think that some of the findings are as late as 70 AD). These documents are made up of many (but not all) of the books of the Old Testament [“40%”], including what Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” and books like Enoch [“30%”], as well as a significant portion of extra psalms and songs, community rules (for living a strict community life) and many other documents [“30%”].

    This strict sect may be generically referred to as the Qumran Community since most all people consider the documents associated with the settlement in Qumran, but specifically, most people have identified this community with a group called the Essenes, which is mentioned throughout history. This group has many teachings and themes of serious (“Hard-core”) Judaism throughout their writings which are naturally consistent and incorporated within the ultimate revolution brought on by Jesus and His Apostles. Perhaps one of the most striking parallels are the very specific similarities between the Qumran Community and John the Baptist.

 

A very significant amount of evidence in the DSS supports the original Hebrew behind the LXX which is different than the MT:

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spappendix.htm

 

Major Parallel themes include

Both talked about being a part of The New Covenant

 

Long before John The Baptist and Jesus ever called divorce and remarriage adultery, the Qumran Community opposed this, by saying they are caught in one of the three main nets that satan traps people:

 

 by…taking two wives during their lifetimes… but the foundation of the creation… is, ‘Male and female created He them’”

 

(Damascus Document, Near the end of column 4, translated from a copy of the document discovered earlier by S. Schechter in 1910)

 

Note: It is also clear from this quote that remarriage is always wrong based on the fundamental fact that polygamy is always wrong. This is the background teaching from which Jesus calls divorce and remarriage adultery.

 

Extra that I need to sure up the translation:

They are ensnared by two: by fornication

 

 

Major Documents that I quote and use are

The Damascus Document

 

---------------

…like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk (Hebrew pesher פשר = "Commentary"), and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls

---------------

 

Printed DSS Resources

 

The Dead Sea scrolls Bible: the oldest known Bible Translated for the First Time into English

By Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint, Eugene Charles Ulrich

Copyright © 1999 By Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. All rights Reserved.

Format: Hardcover, 649pp.
ISBN: 9780060600631
Publisher: Harper San Francisco
Pub. Date: December 1999

[Buy it on eBay]

 

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English

Revised Edition by Géza Vermčs,.

(Oldest versions Titled: Dead Sea Scrolls in English)

Newest edition: 2004 (buy the one with white cover, not the old red cover edition)

ISBN-13: 9781850755630

ISBN-10: 1850755639

Publisher: Some say, “Penguin Books, 1962-2004” and others say, “Sheffield Academic Press”

Page Count: 391

[Buy it on eBay]

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation

Revised Edition by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 2005.

ISBN-13: 9780060766627

ISBN-10: 006076662X

Publisher: HarperOne

Date: November 2005

Page Count: 662

[Buy it on eBay]

Generic eBay Link

 

The Dead Sea scrolls translated: the Qumran texts in English

Florentino García Martínez, W. G. E. Watson

ISBN-13: 9789004105898

ISBN-10: 9004105891

Publisher: Brill Academic Publishers

Date: March 1996

Page Count: 519

[Buy it on eBay]

 

The Dead Sea scrolls study edition

Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar

Very interesting, with “a critical text of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew and English),” but too expensive

 

Discoveries from the Judaean Desert Series

Considered a very authoritative set of books in a large 40 volume series, but too expensive

eBay

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoveries_in_the_Judean_Desert

 

Holman QuickSource

Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls

I cannot recommend this resource because it has pornography in it (that is, mostly “classical” “renaissance,” hypocritical-religious male pornography).

$15 at BAM

 

Also see

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

C:\Files\ComputerOperation\Shortcuts\Research\DSS Dead Sea Scroles

 

DSS Bible

DSS Bible is my way of abbreviating, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.” For all of the details about this, see the “Printed DSS Resources” under DSS.

 

HOT

When quoting the Bible, the abbreviation “HOT” stands for the Hebrew Old Testament, which is also called the “Tanach” or “Tanakh” by Rabbinic Judaism. The word “Tanakh” comes from a Hebrew acronym for:

 

Torah (Law)

Neviim (Prophets), and

Ketuvim (Writings)

 

This is an ancient division and order of the Old Testament that is still used by the Jews today.

 

Compare:

MT, LXX, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS, GNT

 

GNT – Greek New Testament

> Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)

 

The abbreviation “GNT” stands for the Koine “Greek New Testament”; (See Koine Greek as defined later in the Glossary). There are basically three major “Textual Traditions” or “types” or “versions” of the GNT in use today as a basis for translations:

 

(1) Textus Receptus

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

(3) Alexandrian Text

 

(1) Textus Receptus

The Textus Receptus is Latin for the “Received Text,” and is frequently abbreviated as “TR” (or sometimes “T”). The Textus Receptus was basically one of the very first standardized and printed Greek New Testaments, being first printed in 1516. The name “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text” implies that this is the text that we have “received” which has been passed down to us. What is not specified in this name is that it is the first major “critical text” to examine many major documents of the GNT and attempt to determine and compile the most correct readings out of all of the textual variations available. This is what is called a Critical Text.

    After it was compiled, the Textus Receptus became the standard Greek New Testament Text used by Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, the KJV, and most of the rest of the reformers, and it continued to be considered the standard for the New Testament from the 16th to the nineteenth century. In more recent years other texts have been considered more authoritative by the majority of all scholars and theologians.

The Primary Versions of the Textus Receptus Include:

Erasmus1 (Novum Instrumentum omne) – 1516, 1519, 1522, and 1527

Stephanus2 – 1550 1546, 1549, 1550 [“Editio Regia”] and 1551 [Latin translation of Erasmus & Vulgate; NT versification added]

Beza3 – 1598, (revised nine times between 1565 and 1604)

Elzevir4 – 1624, 1633 (the version that coined the term, “Textus Receptus”)

Scrivener5 – 1894 (tried to reconstruct a Greek text behind the KJV)

1. Erasmus – Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466-1536) – a wicked, ant-christian, humanist critic;

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

2. StephanusFrench: Robert I Estienne (Paris 1503-Geneva, 1559); Latin: Robertus Stephanus; English: Robert Stephens;

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

3. Beza – Theodore Beza (1519-1605); French: Théodore de Bčze or de Besze; (a disciple, defender, and successor of John Calvin)

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

4. Elzevir – Esp. referring to Abraham and Bonaventure

5. Scrivener – Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891)

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

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

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Main_Page

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

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

The Byzantine Majority Text is commonly known as the “Byzantine Text,” “Majority Text,” “Traditional Text,” “Syrian Text,” and or “Antiochian Text.” The Byzantine Majority Text is Similar to the Textus Receptus, but is a somewhat different method for determining and compiling the most accurate Greek text of the New Testament. This is especially represented by the Greek Texts compiled by “Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont” and or that done by “Hodges and Farstad.” Whenever comparing this with the Textus Receptus (number 1), or Alexandrian Text (number 3), I may abbreviate the Byzantine Text as “Byz,” “B-Text,” or simply, “B.”

One of the primary differences with the Byz and the “Textus Receptus” is that the Byz does not seem to give as much weight to non-Greek texts (such as the Latin Vulgate)

(3) Alexandrian Text

Following in the footsteps of an increasing number of scholars, “Westcott and Hort” (1881) particularly helped start the trend of prioritizing Alexandrian Greek texts with their promotion of Codex Vaticanus. This tendency was even more energized with the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874). Because of this, the Alexandrian texts are especially represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which (although they have many disagreements) have been compiled into new, modern, standard Greek New Testaments, and the primary examples of this can be seen in “that of modern critical editions such as those published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle-Aland editions. see Footnote such as, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, (and more recently) the Society of Biblical Literature (i.e. the SBLGNT), and a few others.

> remember DivRem for this last sentence

    It is important to note that though the majority of all the historically recognized Greek texts we have of the New Testament disagree with these Alexandrian texts, yet the majority of all modern bibles today are based on them because they are considered older and more relyable by most “scholars.”

    Whenever comparing this with the first two texts mentioned (numbers 1 and 2) I may abbreviate the Alexandrian Texts as “A-Text” (or “A”) whenever they do not disagree with each other. Wherever they do disagree, then I try to speak specifically by naming “Vaticanus” and or “Sinaiticus” when appropriate.

GNT Variations, in General

Between these three versions of the GNT there are differences in the Greek of the New Testament. Many of these differences are due to spelling, word order, and other small things that do not change the meaning of a passage, or many times even show up in translation, since they are so small. But out of all of these big and small variations, the Preface to the NKJV says that the New Testament is in “eighty-five percent” agreement between all three of them, since the text is mostly exactly the same. The same things are reported by others as well:

“…well over 85% of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions remains identical, regardless of which text is followed… The significant translatable differences between the modern critical texts [that is, mostly the Alexandrian Text Type], the Authorized Version [that is, the Textus Receptus], and the Byzantine Textform are most clearly presented in the NU-text and M-text footnotes appended to editions of the ‘New King James Version,’ published by Thomas Nelson Co….see Footnote

Although I’ve studied these things for countless hours over many years, I’ve not yet found anyone who can give a thorough, reliable, complete answer for which Greek text to prefer. Especially until God may have mercy and help me with this need, I constantly seek to be conscientious of all the textual variations and to prioritize where they all agree.

Typically I use the Byzantine/Majority Greek New Testament or the Textus Receptus. While I also try to pay attention and take note of the variations in the Alexandrian Text Types, as far as I have researched so far, I have not considered them as authoritative as I do the others.

Footnote

Some of the previous quotes are taken from:

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT:
BYZANTINE TEXTFORM

The Greek Text Edited by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont”*

You can view the GNT on my website at:

www.TrueConnection.org/goto/gnt

Compare:

Koine Greek, LXX, Strong’s, RMAC

IGNT

“IGNT” is an abbreviation for an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. This usually sets a direct word for word English translation right next to or underneath the original Greek of the New Testament.

A classic version of this which I read is:

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

With A Greek-English Lexicon And New Testament Synonyms* By

George Ricker Berry

[* As seen under “Berry Greek-English Lexicon”]

(Reprinted by Baker Book House)

This was originally known as:

The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament” by George Ricker Berry

Although it is typically available in print at an affordable price, it is also freely available to view online or download as a PDF from Google books.

HNT

“Hebrew New Testament translated by 19th century German scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), co-author of the famed multi-volume Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament.”*

This may be useful for theoretically considering what the original Hebrew versions of Matthew and Hebrews may have said.

Latin Vulgate

“Jerome's 405 A.D. Latin Vulgate w/ Deuterocanon using Gallican Psalter” *

This is the main historical translation of the Early Greek New Testament into Latin. It serves as an ancient Latin witness, which in many ways confirms the accuracy of the GNT that we have today. In some cases, it also speaks to a somewhat earlier form of the Hebrew MT as well.

One of the main ways to read this in English is by using the DRB.

Compare:

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

Back to TOP

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use

An application of the previous section, interjected here before proceeding with Bible versions

Other dates; 5/25/17

 

Purpose and Explanation

As seen in the previous section, the question as to what we should do about the variations in the different copies of the Old Testament is a very difficult question for those who are honest with the facts that have been previously set before us. Because of this the ultimate goal for this section is to determine which source text of the Old Testament to draw from, translate, and quote when referencing the OT. In the meantime, I have initially needed to compile this as an explanation as to which text I use for the OT, and why. Whatever we do, we should diligently seek to mimic the patterns laid down for us by Jesus and the Apostles, because we know they wrote down perfect examples for us to follow.

    So to somewhat draw this altogether: This section is my “Source-Text Bibliography” for the Old Testament – it is an ever-developing research project, which briefly identifies and summarizes the New Testament proof (and related evidence) that I have found so far for the source text behind each book of the Old Testament which we should prefer and use. If you have more evidence and or proof to consider, please do let me know!

Initially, as a starting point, I have generally recompiled and used some very useful analytical data about the LXX and MT from a very useful website:

http://www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

old: http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

©2000 by R. Grant Jones

Also Study!:

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

 

I have especially used and recompile information from the articles entitled:

(1) “The Septuagint in the New Testament”

(2) “Agreement in Meaning Between the New Testament Quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament”

I have represented the data that I have collected from this website in gray, and whatever content I have added is in black or other colors. R. Grant Jones (the author of this website) has given a number of disclaimers as to the limitations of his research and the room for inaccuracies in judgment calls that he has made, but none the less he has provided some basic data that should have already been given to us by more thorough teams of students and researchers. And no one can complain about the limitations of this research until they have first provided a better alternative (which I am praying for on a regular basis).

>> I long to analyze even the illusions to the OT, and for that matter, I long for a way to find a text that perfectly agrees with the NT!

>> This is a tool and centralized location for me to compile, digest and analyze all of my research to find the OT

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use

Although the base data that I have used here was specifically concerned with comparing the LXX with the MT for each of the NT quotes of the OT, the conclusions that I summarize afterwards also consider evidence even where the NT does not quote the OT. I am concerned here with answering which source texts are accurate for each book, and the NT quotes are certainly the place to start, but I have also taken into consideration other evidence (including things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), etc.) when the NT does not specifically address every source text need.

    Additionally, when grappling with the fundamental consideration between the LXX and the MT, whenever there are difficult questions about a certain book or passage where New Testament evidence is lacking (that is, there are not enough New Testament quotes to determine which source text is to be preferred), in such cases, whenever the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or other Hebrew texts reaffirm a reading in the LXX, this generally suggests that the textual variations existed in Hebrew before being translated into the Greek of the LXX.  In such cases, the evidence generally suggests a scenario where the New Testament would approve of the LXX and DSS reading.  This is because (as documented and seen in the previous section) we can basically conclude from the New Testament that the original form of the LXX was completely reliable.  Therefore, if textual variations existed in the Hebrew of an original LXX book before they were translated into Greek, and we find evidence for this in the Hebrew of the DSS, then this generally represents a textual tradition which the New Testament has already given amazing approval to. 

    The only major possibility of an LXX and DSS agreement against the MT that would still be wrong, is if someone around the time of the DSS back-translated the LXX into DSS Hebrew.  This is unlikely as a whole, and so far I have not found any evidence for this, and furthermore, it is even less likely given the fact that much of the Hebrew evidence supporting the LXX is in the older Palio-Hebrew form, which generally ceased to be commonly used long before the time of the LXX. So, when the DSS agree with the LXX against the MT, the LXX and the DSS are most likely the correct variation.

    So the primary need lies in determining how the New Testament deals with the two primary source texts to consider for the Old Testament (LXX and MT) and beyond this initial need, it is also extremely important to fine-tune our conclusions based on other evidence that fills in the gaps as to which source text to use for each of the remaining books and passages, so we can complete the picture to show the nature of the Old Testament that we should use.

    Even if we do not have direct New Testament evidence to support a choice of which textual variation to prefer in each case of an Old Testament textual challenge, we do have overall evidence to support the reliability of the original form of the LXX, and the DSS Hebrew and other ancient source texts can often give us clues as to what that is whenever the New Testament does not specifically address each case.

An Explanation On The Nature And Current State Of The Data So Far

The work that originally presented the data that is represented later in gray was based off of an analysis of “320 distinct quotations…of the…Old Testament* which means that the base data does not include an analysis of the thousands of other, looser quotations illusions and references that the NT makes of the OT. Please refer to  R. Grant Jones’ website and review his data to better understand his method and the nature of his analysis. I am simply using his work as a place to start because I have found no one else who has even begun to reasonably answer this question.

    Although it is always ideal to achieve a more complete and thorough analysis when solving critical questions, especially when dealing with the best version of the Bible, this is at least a place to start until we can find or create a more complete answer to one of the most pressing questions that most church leaders have irresponsibly swept under the rug.

    If you have any help or corrections at all we would deeply appreciate the much needed help in compiling a more complete summary to help us find the Old Testament that Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church used.

[* from “The Septuagint in the New Testament,” under “Table 1:  Quotations Overview,” point 3]

An Explanation for the Following Chart

So far this table does not yet definitively “find the [whole] Old Testament,” but it does generally document and summarize some critical evidence, especially that which is based on the authority of the NT.  One of the main points that this clearly shows so far, is that the New Testament generally prefers to use the LXX in most cases rather than the MT.  In a number of cases, it does seem that we have come significantly close to finding a number of Old Testament books whenever the New Testament gives a particular source text nearly 100% approval with numerous agreeing quotes from it.

(1) NT Disagreements with the MT or LXX – This puts the number of quotes that disagree with each particular source text next to the number of total verses quoted from each book, separated by a forward slash (/); This is the pattern: Number-of-disagreeing-Quotes/Number-of-agreeing-Quotes

(2) % of MT or LXX Agreement – This shows what percent the NT agrees with the MT and what percent it agrees with the LXX. This is the pattern: Percent-of-MT-Quotes/Percent-of-LXX-Quotes

(3) Interpreting the data – As an example to explain how to understand this chart (as Jones somewhat gives with this data): if you look along from left to right where this table addresses Genesis, we can see that the NT disagrees with the MT in 4 out of 31 quotes of Genesis, but basically disagrees with the LXX 0 times out of these 31 quotes. This means that (based on this data) the NT agrees with the MT 87.1 percent of the time when quoting Genesis, but it essentially agrees with the LXX 100 percent of the time in its quotes of this book. As a conclusion I would say that we generally should prefer to use the LXX for the book of Genesis, especially in most cases where the MT diverges from it, because that is what the NT does with virtually every quote it gives us from Genesis.

Prioritize analyzing these:

Deu

Isa

done: Jer

Psa

done: Mal

Book by Book OT Source Text Summary

OT Book

NT Disagreements with the

MT

NT Disagreements with the LXX

% of

MT / LXX Agreement

Conclusions

and Notes

In General

101.5/320

22.5/320

68.3/93

For the most part, the NT supports the use of the LXX over the MT as a source text for the OT

Genesis

4/31

0/31

87.1/100

LXX

Out of the numerous fragments of Genesis in the DSS, we have 32 out of the 50 chapters preserved. Part of this is supported in the more ancient Paleo-Hebrew.

Although it does not seem to be exclusively consistent with the LXX, there are about at least 8 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (I do not yet know how many times the reverse may be true in other cases where the DSS agree with the MT); In any case, out of 31 quotes the NT disagrees with the MT 4 times, but with the LXX, it disagrees 0 times for this book.

Exodus

2/31.33

0/31.33

92.6/100

LXX

There are about at least 51 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)

Leviticus

0/15.83

0/15.83

100/100

LXX (or maybe some MT)

There are about at least 27 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)

Numbers

1/2

0/2

50/100

LXX (some MT; DSS?)

There are about at least 43 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)

Deuteronomy

13/43.33

7/43.33

70/83.8

LXX, DSS (some MT)

There are about at least 61-62 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis);

The book of Deuteronomy is one of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 14%) along with Psalms (23%) and Isaiah (20%).

Joshua

 

 

 

direct quotes: 0

direct references include: Act_7:45; Heb_4:8; Heb_11:30-31;

(Joshua is also approved by Moses before even writing this book)

Judges

 

 

 

direct quotes: 0

direct references include: Heb_11:32; (also see 1Sa_12:11 – i.e. “Jerubbaal” is the same as “Gideon”; This proves that from the Kings to the book of Hebrews, God’s people have always accepted these books as truth from God)

Ruth

 

 

 

 

1 Samuel

0/1

0/1

100/100

LXX or DSS (Some MT?)

The DSS significantly favor the LXX more than the MT for this book (as seen in the quote from the DSS Bible under MT. Even though we do not have a lot of NT evidence for any particular source text in this case, the DSS suggests that we should generally prefer the LXX, since it proves that it is mostly faithful to the Hebrew behind it.

2 Samuel

0/2.5

0/2.5

100/100

See: 1 Samuel

(Samuel in ancient times was one book containing our “1st and 2nd Samuel”)

1 Kings

0/2

0/2

100/100

LXX or DSS? (Some MT?)

2 Kings

 

 

 

Although the NT does not quote directly from this particular “book” I would generally think that each source text would still mostly fall into the same state of accuracy here in this case as the previous three “books,” since all four of them were all considered sub-parts of the same collection. In the LXX these four books were designated as 1-4 Reigns.

1 Chronicles

 

 

 

MT or LXX

The NETS says that these books in the LXX are “relatively well preserved” and “fairly close” to their counter parts in the MT. For whatever reason, the accounts of the kings seem to be mostly consistent from MT to LXX (with the exception of David’s price for Michal

(Source: “Translation Profile of the Greek,” under, “To The Reader” in “1 and 2 Supplements,” NETS)

These books are approved in passing in as much as the books of the Kings are approved since they are constantly referenced as reliable truth by the books of the Kings:

1Ki_14:19 (MT); 1Ki_14:29; 1Ki_15:7; 1Ki_15:23; 1Ki_15:31; 1Ki_16:5; 1Ki_16:14; 1Ki_16:20; 1Ki_16:27; 1Ki_22:39; 1Ki_22:45; 2Ki_1:18; 2Ki_8:23; 2Ki_10:34; 2Ki_12:19; 2Ki_13:8; 2Ki_13:12; 2Ki_14:15; 2Ki_14:18; 2Ki_14:28; 2Ki_15:6; 2Ki_15:11; 2Ki_15:15; 2Ki_15:21; 2Ki_15:26; 2Ki_15:31; 2Ki_15:36; 2Ki_16:19; 2Ki_20:20; 2Ki_21:17; 2Ki_21:25; 2Ki_23:28; 2Ki_24:5; Neh_12:23; Est_2:23; Est_6:1; Est_10:2;

(not to be confused with 1Ch_27:24;)

2 Chronicles

 

 

 

Ezra

 

 

 

Ezra and Nehemiah nearly always go together as the fulfillment of Jeremiah and Daniel’s prophecies for the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. Although their place in the Bible has always been accepted (especially since Ezra was the first to somewhat standardize the first sort of “cannon” for a “Bible” beyond the books of Moses) still, the NT does not directly quote from these two books.

direct quotes: 0

direct references include: not in Matthew

Nehemiah

 

 

 

Esther

 

 

 

MT, (some LXX? No DSS)

The main source text question with the book of Esther is what to do about “the additions to Esther” in the LXX.  They are extremely dramatic, and add numerous references to God to this story.  So far I do not accept them. (compare Daniel below);

    Sadly there are no DSS versions, or even fragments of Ester. From what histories I’ve read, this makes me wonder if someone involved in the process was either unimpressed with a version of Ester not having any specific references to God’s name (as the MT), or they were possibly turned off by the “exaggerated” drama found in a version like the one in the current LXX. I am basically impressed with what we have in the MT, but so far I have not been able to reconcile the drama in the current LXX version of Esther.

Job

0/2

2/2

100/0

MT (DSS? Any LXX?)

Job is one of the few books where the NT prefers the MT variations: Rom_11:35 quotes Job_41:11 and 1Co_3:19 quotes Job_5:13 – both of these times an MT reading is quoted rather than one consistent with the LXX; It is difficult to remove all questions here because we are only dealing with two direct quotes so far, and comparing looser quotes and references might help fill in the gaps for analysis sake.; also compare Job_5:17; Pro_3:11-12; Heb_12:5-11; {Jam_5:11}

Psalms

20/76.5

1/76.5

73.9/98.7

LXX (some MT, DSS?)

The book of Psalms is the most quoted out of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 23%) along with Deuteronomy (14%) and Isaiah (20%).

Proverbs

5/6

0/6

16.7/100

LXX

It seems that the poetical aspect of the book of proverbs was hit pretty hard in terms of textual variation.  Between the different source texts for this book, someone seems to have felt free to greatly rewrite many of the Proverbs in the middle of passing this book along to future generations.  The New Testament strongly supports the version found in the LXX in this case.

Ecclesiastes

 

 

 

Although it does not look like the NT directly quotes this book, there are a number of possible illusions made to it: Rom_8:20; Jam_4:14 (Also see Wis_2:1 etc.)

Song of Solomon

 

 

 

Song of Songs is a thrilling and implicitly explicit love story. Many people have been offended at its potent, poetic celebration and exaltation of overwhelming romance and sex for marriage, and at times heretics have tried to reject it. But although the NT does not so much directly quote this book, it does make references to its spiritual implications:

Very, very closely observe the numerous subtle parallels:

Son_5:2-6 (etc.); Luk_12:35; Mat_25:5-7 (also compare Luk_11:7; Mat_26:38-43)

and also possibly MT of:

Son_1:14; Son_1:16; Son_2:3; Son_2:8; Son_2:9; Son_2:10; Son_2:16; Son_2:17; Son_4:16; Son_5:2; Son_5:4; Son_5:5; Son_5:6; Son_5:8; Son_5:10; Son_5:16; Son_6:2; Son_6:3; Son_7:9; Son_7:10; Son_7:11; Son_7:13; Son_8:14;

and

Eph_1:6

Isaiah

43.5/65.5

5.5/65.5

33.6/91.6

LXX (some DSS, some MT)

The book of Isaiah is one of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 20%) along with Psalms (23%) and Deuteronomy (14%).

There is at least some DSS evidence supporting the Hebrew Behind the LXX (ex. The absence of Isa_2:22)

Jeremiah

2/5

(MT Problems: Jer_31:32-33; Heb_8:8-12; Heb_10:16)

1/5

(LXX Problem: Jer_31:15; Mat_2:18)

60/80

(LXX is actually almost 100%, except 1 slightly different word, as seen in previous example)

LXX/ DSS

The Greek in LXX Jeremiah is notably strong in keeping with the Hebrew text behind it. The NT clearly recognizes and supports this, with very little variation.  We have mostly discovered this type of Hebrew text in 2 out of the 6 Jeremiah Scrolls discovered in the DSS (4QJerb and 4QJerd), with only a little variation! These two Hebrew documents basically agree with the LXX and prove even further that it was translated faithfully from an original Hebrew text, and this is the text approved by the NT; As for the Hebrew agreement, “This is true not only in small details but also in major aspects where the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text.” And this Jeremiah text ends up being “about 13 percent shorter than the longer version found in modern Bibles!” (DSS Bible, Jeremiah, p. 382, 3rd paragraph)

This is strong evidence that the commonly used MT Jeremiah was altered after the fact.  A significant portion of these additions in the MT are simply due to some kind of a scribal commentator filling in the details and background information for us, but at least 2 of them are inaccuracies that the NT does not agree with. (I am not sure what to do with Jer_31:15 and Mat_2:18)

Lamentations

 

 

 

 

Ezekiel

0/1

0/1

100/100

MT/DSS (only slightly LXX)

We have to be sensitive in this situation, because not only is there only one quote in the New Testament from this book, but we should also consider that Ezekiel is not always considered part of a subgroup like the other prophets are, and this can affect textual transmission.

NETS inadvertently documents significant evidence (as 5 examples of bad Greek translation on p. 946-948) that suggests that the current LXX for Ezekiel is unreliable, which is why we are currently prioritizing MT and DSS.

Daniel

0/5

0/5

100/100

MT? Some LXX? DSS?

I find these statistics surprising given the fact that there are some significant variations in this book, and some strange historical issues surrounding its transmission.

The main question about this book beyond the textual variations, is the question over the books that are often attached to the end of it: I accept “the history of Susana” but I definitely do not accept “Bell and the Dragon.” I am uncertain about the other textual variations so far.  It seems like something in history prompted the early church to use a Greek version of Daniel closer to the MT rather than using the one in the LXX of their day, while they definitely accepted “the history of Susana.”

Hosea

4/7

1/7

42.9/85.7

LXX (some MT, DSS?)

We should take into consideration that from Hosea to Malachi, these 12 “latter prophets” are grouped together and considered one book in the LXX.

Joel

1/2

0/2

50/100

LXX (some MT, DSS?)

Amos

2/2

0/2

0/100

LXX (some MT, DSS?)

Obadiah

 

 

 

 

Jonah

0/1

0/1

100/100

LXX (or MT, DSS?)

Micah

1/2

1/2

50/50

LXX (or MT, DSS?)

Nahum

 

 

 

 

Habakkuk

2/4

0/4

50/100

LXX (some MT, DSS?)

Zephaniah

 

 

 

 

Haggai

0/1

0/1

100/100

LXX & MT, DSS?

Zechariah

1/7

2/7

85.7/71.4

MT (some LXX, DSS?)

From closely watching textual variations, it appears that the MT is mostly better than the LXX for this book, and this is slightly affirmed by the greater percentage of MT agreement in this chart.

Malachi

0/4

3/4

100/25

MT (some LXX/ DSS)

There are indications in the DSS that suggest that a few parts of the LXX are more accurate than some parts of the MT, but this is not the majority. (There are only 2 manuscripts of Malachi that survived out of the 10 copies of the minor prophets in the DSS, especially because Malachi is consistently at the ends of the scrolls and is exposed to determination than other parts)

The main factor that greatly tilts the scales in favor of the MT in this case is actually only a few words in Mal_3:1 which are quoted 3 times in exactly the same way in the NT, which definitely proves that the LXX that we have today has been altered in this case.

The only other portion of Malachi that is quoted by the NT fares just the same for the LXX as it does for the MT.

Tobit

 

 

 

LXX or DSS

This is one of the two Deuterocanonical books found in the DSS (see Sirach)

Judith

 

 

 

LXX

Wisdom

 

 

 

LXX

Sirach

 

 

 

LXX or DSS

This is one of the two Deuterocanonical books found in the DSS (see Tobit)

Baruch

 

 

 

LXX

1 Maccabees

 

 

 

LXX

2 Maccabees

 

 

 

LXX

>> see Susana under Daniel

Misspelling in DSS page: Dr 12.19

Song of Songs uses Agape 77 times:

Son_1:3; Son_1:4; Son_1:5; Son_1:7; Son_1:8; Son_1:15; Son_1:16; Son_2:3; Son_2:6; Son_2:7; Son_2:10; Son_2:12; Son_2:13; Son_2:14; Son_2:15; Son_2:17; Son_3:1; Son_3:2; Son_3:3; Son_3:4; Son_3:5; Son_3:6; Son_3:10; Son_3:11; Son_4:1; Son_4:2; Son_4:3; Son_4:6; Son_4:7; Son_4:8; Son_4:10; Son_4:11; Son_4:13; Son_4:14; Son_4:15; Son_4:16; Son_5:1; Son_5:2; Son_5:4; Son_5:6; Son_5:8; Son_5:9; Son_5:10; Son_5:11; Son_5:12; Son_5:16; Son_6:1; Son_6:2; Son_6:3; Son_6:4; Son_6:6; Son_6:7; Son_6:8; Son_6:9; Son_6:10; Son_6:11; Son_6:13; Son_7:5; Son_7:6; Son_7:7; Son_7:8; Son_7:9; Son_7:10; Son_7:13; Son_8:1; Son_8:2; Son_8:3; Son_8:4; Son_8:6; Son_8:7; Son_8:8; Son_8:9; Son_8:10; Son_8:11; Son_8:12; Son_8:13; Son_8:14;

DSS Books

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Jubilees

PROPHETS

Joshua

Judges

Samuel

Kings

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

The Book of theTwelve Minor Prop...

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habakkuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

Daniel

OTHER BOOKS

Psalms

Job

Proverbs

Ben Sira Sirach

Ruth

The Song of Songs Canticles

Qohelet Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

The Epistle of Jeremiah

Esther

Chronicles

EzraNehemiah

Tobit

Data Arranged by New Testament Agreement

Nearly all of the following information is taken directly from R. Grant Jones’ website, with combinations of information made by myself (Josiahs Scott), and slight formatting changes to make it work within this project

Percent of Agreement with each OT source Text

I combined two tables below:

Bible Book

MT

LXX

In General

93

68.3

Matthew

70.4

83.3

Mark

85.2

88.9

Luke

80.1

92.3

John

71.4

92.9

Acts

75.0

100

Romans

58.2

94.3

1 Cor

70.6

88.2

2 Cor

80.0

100

Galatians

60.0

100

Ephesians

100

100

1 Timothy

100

100

2 Timothy

0

100

Hebrews

54.1

97.3

James

75.0

100

1 Peter

41.7

91.7

2 Peter

100

100

Groupings and Conclusions

I have also put this information side by side from two web pages (with minimal [bracketed] insertions)

MT

LXX

Although the agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagint was seen to be lowest in the gospels, the Masoretic text fared even more poorly here.  Proceeding as before, we find the following for natural New Testament groupings:

Synoptic gospels - 76.6
John                       - 71.4
Acts                       - 75.0
Pauline epistles    - 65.2
Hebrews                - 54.1
Catholic epistles  - 52.9

Luke's quotations agree in meaning with the Masoretic text 77.3% of the time.  It appears, then, that agreement with the Masoretic text is best in the gospels, and considerably worse in Paul's writings and the other epistles.

The most remarkable number in the table… [shown previously] …is the agreement percentage for the book of Isaiah, only 33.6%.  Other important books - Psalms and Deuteronomy - also show strong divergence from the Masoretic text.  But the New Testament's tendency to disagree with Isaiah is striking. 

Other conclusions can be drawn.  Considering the New Testament as comprised of the synoptic gospels, John, Acts, Paul's epistles, Hebrews, and the catholic epistles, the following agreement percentages are found:

Synoptic gospels - 86.9
John                       - 92.9
Acts                       - 100
Paul's epistles       - 94.2
Hebrews                 - 97.3
Catholic epistles   - 94.1

If we group Luke's writings, Luke and Acts, we find an agreement rate of 97%.  Clearly, the gospels tend to diverge from the Septuagint most frequently, with Matthew showing the most disagreement.

Looking instead at the source books, the agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagintal versions of Job, Micah and Malachi is quite poor. 

Perhaps the most impressive aspect… [is] …the excellent agreement for Genesis, Exodus and Psalms, with almost 139 quotations drawn from these three books, and only one disagreement. 

Overall, the agreement in sense between the New Testament and the Septuagint is 93%.  This compares favorably with the rate of agreement between the New Testament quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament, 68%...

Bible Translations and Versions

Copyrights In General

Most bible versions today require a copyright notice to be included somewhere in the works that use them, and although I am including the official copyright notice for these bible versions (as required), I (Josiahs Scott) have crossed out many of the false statements made within these quotes.

Jos.Trans.

Josiahs’ Translation (Jos.Trans.) is my personal work of translating the Scriptures, especially when a proper translation of a certain verse or passage cannot be found to represent the Scriptures accurately. When I translate, I usually use the LXX for the Old Testament (unless otherwise specified by the abbreviation: MT) and the GNT for the New Testament.

    If you read any of the passages of the Bible that I have translated and would like to help me in any way to expand these passages into a complete translation one day, then please contact me.

Abbreviations and Symbols

Unless otherwise specified, most [bracketed words] are a more functional representation within translations of various passages to explain a literally represented Greek word or phrase that may be challenging for us to understand in English. In other words, I use bracketed words to expand certain Greek words that can be otherwise hard to understand when literally and directly represented in English. In addition to these explanations, I also use the following abbreviations within the brackets whenever I need to make technical notes in the midst of translating the Bible:

Abbreviations

Explanation

d.a.

Definite Article – that is, “the” (as opposed to “a”); (see Strong’s G3588)

Gr.

Greek

Lit.

Literally - On some occasions it may seem impractical to translate a Greek word or phrase in a literal way since it may be beyond what is at all understandable in English. In cases like this, I first render a Greek word or phrase in the most literal way possible for it to make some kind of sense to an English reader, and then I also try to briefly explain the literal details within the [brackets].

“”

I rarely use quotation marks without graying them, since they are not in the original text, but sometimes they are directly communicated by the way words are arranged, especially with the use of “that” – “ὅτι” (hoti) in Greek; (compare Strong’s G3754). Whenever the equivalent of “quotation marks” is indicated by the structure of the Greek, then I do not gray out the quotation marks in translating the passage.

Example:

[σὰρξ (sarx)]

Whenever inserting the Greek into a translation of a passage, I do it like this:

[A (B)]

Where:

A = The Original Greek

B = The Greek Pronunciation

Jos.Trans

simplistic Greek - It should also be noted that on some occations the Greek is very simplistic. Though the primary translation is gramatically represented, I still do not want the reader to miss out on some phrases where part of the impact is its brevity and straightforwardness. Because of this, I sometimes include a "gramatically stripped" version of the words in the brackets so that the reader can "feel" the brevity and simplistic nature of a number of key sayings in Greek.

One primary example of this is the command, "You shall not commit adultery." This is gramatically correct but the saying is so brief in Greek, like: "No Adultery!" or "No Adulterating!" or as we might have in some cases: "No Trespassing."

See:

GNT, LXX, HOT, Strong’s, Word Study, RMAC, ALS

Geneva Bible

Printed in 1599, the popular Geneva Bible was the Bible used by most of the reformers.

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

KJV

Whenever I quote the “KJV,” it is usually “…the 1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible (also known as the Authorized Version).” *

>> add: “the word 'godliness'…(holiness, piety towards God...” is not in 1Ti_6:3, except in the word “reverence” (σέβειαν). All of these other things are implications of the word, not definitions. We ought to never replace the definition for the implications and so build upon what we understand rather than what God actually said – this is the crime of nearly every English version, tragically, including the KJV. It is not that the KJV is “so good” that it stands above most all others, but because most others are so bad!

KJVA

“This is the 1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible (also known as the Authorized Version). Although the writings known as the Apocrypha are often not included in Protestant Bibles, they were translated and included in the original King James Bible of 1611…” *

This is useful for viewing the “Apocrypha” in e-Sword.

KJV-1611

This was the original release of the KJV.

KJB

References marked with KJB are cases where I make some changes to the KJV in light of the Greek in order to make it more accurate and easier to understand linguistically.

KJVCNT

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

King James Bible, Clarified (KJC) NT (v1.0), April 25, 1998 Public Domainby Bill McGinnis, Sinner Saved By Grace mcgin@patriot.net

http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/ministries.html

P. O. Box 2543 Alexandria, VA 22301 USA” *

Compare KJ2000 below:

KJ2000

The KJ2000 is comparable to the KJVCNT, in that it is an update to the KJV, with apparently less doctrinal agendas than the NKJV.

“The editor of the King James 2000 is Robert A. Couric, Doctor of Theology and Retired Professor of Bible at Mid-Continent University in Mayfield, Kentucky.”

http://life-equals-jesus.org/Couric/KJ2Khome.html

NKJV

The New King James Version (NKJV) is a main-stream modern Bible translation. It is perhaps comparable to the NIV with some of its translators, only it is not nearly as liberal in its method of translation, and its source texts are also mostly consistent with the KJV.

    The NKJV frequently goes beyond simply updating the KJV, to the point that it weakens the integrity of the representation of the Bible in English, and it does introduce (or repeat) some doctrinal agendas into its representation of the Bible (as if also borrowing from a few other modern versions in “updating”), but still, it is not as indulgent as most modern versions.

    Despite the integrity issues that I have summarized here, the NKJV is generally much better than most all other modern versions in representing the actual Bible to the reader, including, for example, the fact that it is definitely superior by far to the NIV and the ESV.

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

“Scripture taken from the New King James Version

Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

Also see: GNT; NIV; ESV

NIV, TNIV, NIrV

The New International Version (NIV) is the most widely used Main-stream, Modern English bible version today, especially among American Evangelicals. The NIV could not realistically be called a translation, but since it is a hybrid bible version that uses some translation with even more paraphrase, I have not categorized it as a pure paraphrase. It does actually translate sometimes, but most of its content is more paraphrased.

    Obviously, I cannot recommend the NIV (nor any of its successors, including TNIV, NIrV, and the general 2010 update) because of their frequent misrepresentations of the Scriptures. I consider even the term, “Holy Bible” to be inappropriate to apply to the NIV, as done in their copyright notices (as seen later), since the NIV is not free from falsehoods, taints, and corruptions (it is not “Holy”), but instead, it is characterized by such problems.

The NIV was the very first bible version that I ever read through, and I became more and more indignant with it the more I researched Hebrew and Greek, because I continually found falsehoods, errors and lies.

    I started discovering that something was wrong with the NIV when someone gave me a computerized KJV.  I found so many extreme differences in the two versions that it always left me desperately wondering, “Who’s right?” If you are talking about messing with the Words of God, I need to know! In my uninformed simplicity, I ended up researching the Hebrew and the Greek the many times I found a conflict between NIV and KJV, and almost every time I researched, I found that NIV was dead wrong.

    From my own personal research, without being influenced by any other human being, very early on I found the NIV in almost every respect dreadfully inferior to the KJV.  Not only did I find it extremely inaccurate and unreliable, but many times I found it downright deceptive and wicked in its misrepresentation of God’s Words.

    I am not a “KJV Only” proponent, nor am I against the idea of having Bible versions that are easy to understand, but I am definitely against mutilating and misrepresenting the Words of God in English, since we victimize the defenseless souls of men that we lie to by stealing truth from them, and seal for ourselves a dreadful judgment for lying to people about what God said.  And this is tragically what nearly every single modern bible version does today, including the NIV.

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ 
Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved

worldwide.”

Scripture quotations marked (TNIV) are taken from the
Holy Bible, Today’s New International Version®. TNIV®.
Copyright© 2001, 2005 by Biblica, Inc.™
Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved
worldwide.”

Scripture quotations marked (NIrV) are taken from the Holy
Bible
, New International Reader’s Version®. NIV®.
Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1998 by Biblica, Inc.™ 
Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved
worldwide.”

www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Company/Policy/Rights/NIV.htm

“THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2010 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/

ESV

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a more recent and very successful main-stream modern hybrid translation (which includes some paraphrasing) which is comparable to NIV, but perhaps not quite as bad.

    I am deeply concerned about the ESV in light of what organizations that I understand are affiliated with them, as well as a number of significant compromises and doctrinal agendas in the text of the version itself.

As of 2009, ESV is reported to include what is commonly called the Apocrypha (compare GNB).

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” *

HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible

The Holman Christian Standard Bible is a version produced by Baptists which is not as bad as NIV, but falls greatly behind the KJV, or even the NKJV.

>> They partly embrace the heresy of dynamic equivalence

Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.

See:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Holman-Christian-Standard-Bible-HCSB/

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

EMTV

The English Majority Text Version (EMTV) is Paul W. Esposito’s modern English translation of the GNT from what is called the Byzantine Majority text form (see GNT).  The EMTV is the New Testament, and it is combined within the CAB to include the Old Testament (from the LXX).  Because of this, see CAB for a more complete discussion of this translation.

Copyright

“English Majority Text Version (EMTV) of the Holy Bible, New Testament.  Copyright © 2002-2003 Paul W. Esposito.” *

www.e-sword.net/bibles.html#emtv

See: CAB

CAB

The Complete Apostles’ Bible (CAB) is one of the better modern English versions which I frequently quote, not only because it has a better-than-average New Testament, but because its Old Testament is based on the Greek LXX instead of the current Hebrew MT. (Note: to understand why that’s important you kind of have to go read what I have written and summarized on LXX and MT). – That being said, we can also be sure that CAB is by no means perfect or even blameless in its translation. I still have to often correct it from the Greek, but that is better than a lot of other versions which are usually not practical to use at all for communicating truth. I typically have to correct a few words when quoting CAB, but with most other versions I might have to almost cross out and correct the entire verse!

    CAB is relatively a very good English translation, especially of the New Testament, and it might generally be one of the best English translations I have seen. I would say that it is one of the very few modern English versions that is frequently more accurate than the KJV. Most all modern Bible versions today (especially those you find in stores) are overtly perverted, sloppy, irresponsible, unreliable and downright dishonest.  Those few that approach a slightly more honest translational approach still don’t base their Old Testament on the version that Jesus and the Apostles usually quoted from (the LXX).  Because of this, CAB is frequently one of the main Bible versions I may use when quickly referencing the Scriptures to English speakers.

>> Link to Recommended English Bible version

Background Explanations

CAB is Paul W. Esposito’s combination of…

(1) “The Apostles' Bible” – for the Old Testament and

(2) The “English Majority Text Version” (EMTV) – for the New Testament.

The Apostles' Bible” is Esposito’s update to Brenton’s English translation of the Greek LXX Septuagint Old Testament (that is, the version of the Old Testament that Jesus and the Apostles usually quoted from), and EMTV is Esposito’s modern English translation of the GNT from what is called the Byzantine Majority text form (that is, the traditional version of the GNT, as opposed to the minority Alexandrian texts that are now being used for most all modern bible versions [see GNT]).

Here is CAB’s Summary (with added links):

“The Apostles' Bible

A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint

Translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

Revised and Edited by Paul W. Esposito, and,

The English Majority Text Version (EMTV) of the Holy Bible, New Testament.

Copyright © 2002-2004 Paul W. Esposito.” *

Official Website

www.majoritytext.com

Link: purchase their latest release

Note 1: you can see and purchase their latest release through this website and its links – unfortunately, the main disadvantage to this is that many of the printed versions are covered with idolatry-images on the covers

Note 2: I have been trying to determine if CAB is indeed the same as what is now called the “The Logos Bible”; see:

(A) Publisher’s descriptions:

http://stores.lulu.com/elected

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-logos-bible/6304716

(B) Google Books

Compare:

LXX, Brenton, NETS, ALS, HOT, GNT

DRB

“Douay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609

Rheims New Testament first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582

The Whole Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, A.D. 1749-1752” *

“This is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Latin Vulgate Bible had been declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the canonical Scriptures. The DRB translators took great pains to translate exactly. When a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure. OT published at English College at Douay, 1609, and Rheims NT at English College at Rheims, 1582.”

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/e-swordmodules/bibles.html

Darby

“A literal translation of the Old Testament (1890) and the New Testament (1884) By John Nelson Darby (1800-82)” *


>> Read:

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

Brenton

“English translation of The Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, originally published in 1851.” *

Brenton mostly uses the Codex Vaticanus when translating [Compare GNT]. Although I sometimes use Brenton for representing the LXX in English, when I do this I try to compare the current critical Greek Texts1.

Brenton can be viewed online in a number of places such as:

(1) English (text)

www.ecmarsh.com/lxx

(2) Comparison with the KJV

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/

http://www.christianmedia.us/LXXE/index.html

Compare:

LXX, CAB, NETS, ALS, HOT, GNT

Bishops

“The holie Bible conteynyng the olde Testament and the newe, 1568” *

The Bishops’ Bible is an early official English translation of the Bible by the Church of England in 1568. After some revisions, it eventually became the base text for the KJV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible

ASV

American Standard Version

“The American Standard Version of 1901 is an Americanization of the English Revised Bible, which is an update of the KJV… It is the product of the work of over 50 Evangelical Christian scholars.

…The ASV also forms the basis for several modern English translations, including the World English Bible.” *

NASB/ NASV

American Standard Bible (NASB), often called the “New American Standard Version.”

Copyright

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."

Their official info

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/

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

opposers:

“NASV Committee Member”

Frank Logsdon

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/whyweuse.shtml

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.htm

http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=1735

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm

their response:

http://vintage.aomin.org/lockman.html

Debate:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=16944

inaccessible

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30430957/Bible-King-James-Version-Logsdon-Essay

\/

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/logsdon.html

ALT

The Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT) could be compared with the “Amplified Bible,” which is a main-line Bible version that aims to expand the meanings of many of the words and connotations in the Bible, but the ALT does this with much less whimsicalness than the mainline version. The ALT makes an actual effort to translate the Bible while the “Amplified Bible” is significantly more interpretative.

>> Do I need to do more research on these topics???

Here are the main notices for the ALT:

Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible… Copyright (c) 1999-2001 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org) The ALT is available in hardcopy format from the publisher 1stBooks (www.1stbooks.com) and from conventional and online bookstores. For background information on the ALT, see www.dtl.org/alt/.” *

Copyright

“Scripture taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Copyright (c) 1999-2001 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org).” *

YLT

“Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by J.N. Young, 1862, 1898 (Author of the Young's Analytical Concordance)” *

WEB

The World English Bible (WEB) is an update of the ASV which is usually much more accurate than most modern translations. It is very easy to read, and it does not have as many doctrinal agendas as most modern versions do. When quickly referencing the New Testament Scriptures in English, I sometimes often use WEB and I sometimes use CAB.

Official Website:

www.ebible.org

MKJV

“Modern King James Version, copyright © 1962-1998 by Jay P. Green, Sr.  All rights reserved.” *

Compare: LITV; KJV

LITV

“Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976-2000 by Jay P. Green, Sr.  All rights reserved.” *

Compare: MKJV

SRV

The Spanish Reina-Valera Bible (1909)

NAB

The New American Bible (NAB) is a modern Catholic version of the Bible first published in 1970, including the Deuterocanonical Books.

                           

1948 – Translation began for the “Confraternity Bible” (later used for the basis of the NAB)

1952-1969 – Old Testament (except Genesis) translated for the “Confraternity Bible”

1970 – NAB First Published

1986 – Second Edition Published (now with gender-erasing language in some places)

1991 – Third Edition

2000 – Fourth Edition - NABRE

Revisions are continuing to be released to the date of this writing.

2008 – More revisions accepted in the United States (“revised Grail Psalter”)

See:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

Compare:

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

And Compare: The Catholic Encyclopedia” (herein).

NETS

A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), is one of the more recent English Translations of the Greek LXX by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright.

See their official explanation at:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

Although copying and printing have been disabled, the NETS can be obtained as Free PDFs from their website:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition

Copyright notice

Quotations are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ©2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Other Details

The second printing of NETS was Published by Oxford University Press in 2009

Printed version:

6-1/4 x 9;

ISBN13: 978-0-19-528975-6

ISBN10: 0-19-528975-7

Compare:

LXX, Brenton, CAB, ALS, HOT, GNT

GLB

The German Luther bible (GLB) was first produced in 1534 by Martin Luther. It was one of the very first bible translations in the common language of the people (the vernacular) from the (Greek) Textus Receptus (see GNT).

Webster Bible

http://www.bible-researcher.com/webster.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Revision

Religious explanation:

http://bibledatabase.org/bibles.html

Secular-Religious explanation:

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

What English Translation Do I Recommend?

Recommend English Bible Version

This question has been asked numerous times

I am more or less outraged at just about every single English version of the bible out there, because none of them really shows the reverence due the original writings.

The best I've been able to find so far is CAB:

http://www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/Bibliography_and_Glossary.html#CAB

At this season this is the primary version that I use (and correct) in my Bible studies. (it is also the primary version that I use in my book) – if you go to this link you should be able to see my basic explanation why.

Because of this, CAB is frequently one of the main Bible versions I may use when quickly referencing the Scriptures to English speakers.  The main exceptions to this are:

(1) NETS is generally a more accurate translation of the LXX than the CAB, not because of Esposito, but because CAB is based on Brenton. Brenton (like the KJV) has its own occasional pitfalls in terms of the accuracy and reliability of its representation of the original text, but these smaller errors are almost always “dwarfed” in light of the constant chaos in just about every other bible version marketed today. But in addition to translating the text a bit more honestly, NETS may be based on a generally more accurate Greek source text due to the increasingly intensive attention and effort given in more recent years to establish the most original LXX possible.

(2) Sometimes WEB is more accurate for the New Testament than CAB is.  Although I don’t usually* use WEB when referencing the Old Testament, when dealing with accurately representing the New Testament in English, it is frequently a close call between WEB and CAB.

[* I sometimes use WEB when I’m particularly referencing the Hebrew MT source text]

(3) Whenever I get to do a thorough Bible study with a group, I usually read from the Greek.  Similarly, whenever I may work on a Bible study and there may be a critical passage in the Old or New Testaments that is not represented sufficiently in any of the English versions that I commonly reference, then I may end up translating it myself. (This is called, Jos.Trans.)

Bible Paraphrases

>> paraphrases: heretics frequently super-impose their own ideas upon texts when copying them and passing them along to furture generations

>> ADD:

There is nothing at all wrong with paraphrasing in and of itself, as much as it can be very helpful for understanding the Scriptures. But what is wrong is paraphrasing and then lying to readers and calling it a “translation,” and being lustful to replace the actual Scriptures with our own commentaries, as countless versions are doing today (ex. the so-called NLT).

We ought not to have any of our own philosophies about how to translate, especially because the Bible itself actually tells us how we ought to translate by approving of the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Greek Septuagint LXX), *which was extremely literal* (yes, much more than KJV).

According to Jesus, real Christians live by “every spoken word that goes out through the mouth of God,” and because of this we do not have a right to remove words and switch them for other words *which nearly every version does today.* And most people don’t care today because they are already dead, but anyone who is alive by God’s words wants all of them in their native language, and I have never found a version that would simply do this.

   If the Bible showed us what was the right and faithful way to translate (i.e. by approving of the Greek translation) then we do not have a right to depart from this faithful transmission and innovate new and sloppier standards for making bible versions.

Paraphrasing for human writings is often preferred above direct translation, because we humans do not usually have Divine things to write, and because of this we have more “liberty” to interpret and paraphrase for each other. The problem comes when we think we can treat the Bible this same way! – I love interpretive translating this way for these types of less critical needs too (although I am not all the way fluent in Spanish I did do a bit of this type of interpretive translation for myself and a few others while in Mexico and Venezuela when traveling and proclaiming to people). But when you are dealing with the Bible, you cannot treat the Bible like regular translation because every part of every Word counts for communicating perfect truth in Divine cases, yes, according to Jesus’ declarations about this, if you violate even a “iota” or a “keraia” (the smallest particles of Greek and Hebrew) you will sooner perish in eternal hell (“geenna”) than to get away with changing one of the least and smallest details of God’s Words from any of their original languages (Mat_5:17-20) especially when you teach others this way! – I did not make this up. Jesus was an extremist when it came to guarding and faithfully transmitting truth, and He did this upholding and fulfilling all of the faithful and righteous Scribes throughout all history, especially since the days of Ezra.

Because of this and the many places in Scripture that teach us to fear God when handling all of these precious details, you need to make it clear what are God’s actual Words and what you are doing to help English readers understand God’s Words. Some more literal versions italicize certain “added words” because of this, but much more is needed.

We do not need to rely on our own understandings and preferences to know God’s standards for translation. He has definitely given us commands to follow concerning this, and if we do not accept His authority on this matter then we have no hope of escaping wrath and inheriting life (just as Jesus said in Mat_5:17-20). The fact that so many are turning more and more to paraphrasing and disguising it as “translation” is a clear demonstration that people hate Jesus and are not under His authority. They are not part of His kingdom now, nor will they have any inheritance in His kingdom when He comes since they are going the exact opposite direction of everything the Bible commands us concerning faithful translation.

Paraphrases, In General

The acceptance and even consumer demand for Paraphrases, which may replace actual translations of the Bible in the hands of an ever-growing number of church goers, is one of the most fearful signs of hatred in which the modern church has scorned God, in her astonishing display of apostasy into the coming days of antichrist. When a day has come where masses of church people happily toss the Scriptures aside from before them, preferring to replace them with works that are for the most part, mere human writings that have been recklessly assembled by God-hating men, a scary day indeed has come upon the earth.

The Scripture says:

Jer_2:10-13 CAB For go to the isles of Kittim, and see; and send to Kedar, and observe accurately, and see if such things have been done;  11  if the nations will change their gods, though they are not gods: but My people have changed their glory, for that from which they shall not be profited.  12  The heaven is amazed at this, and is very exceedingly horrorstruck, says the Lord.  13  For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn out for themselves broken cisterns, which will not be able to hold water.

And though, as a whole, they have stopped being God’s people long ago, it is a terrifying thing when a people of any kind will happily skip to the book store to exchange not only the long-abandoned heritage of holiness and obedience toward God, but even the very translated Words of God Himself for mere shadows and perverted misrepresentations found in the mockeries of so many human paraphrases.

    Truly if there ever were real Christians in today’s church, it is a special thing to find them, since the masses have in many ways completely exchanged every bit of their remaining glory and honor for shame, even to shrugging off the blessed life of the Words of God.

    What kind of a day in history have we come to, when a people calling themselves “christians” often do not even regard the Words of God as sacred enough to guard against being replaced right out of their hands for the deceptive and counterfeited literary works of men? Until we first at least repent of this blatant and fundamental hatred against God we have no hope of escaping being rightly damned as a gross and filthy prostitute.

Today’s version of christianity is a joke and a religious game, and our bible versions are a direct representation of our shallowness and rebellion against God, and they proves that we must fervently repent of our lost and lawless religion to have any salvation at all from the wrath of God.

What Are Paraphrases?

Paraphrases are the very worst versions available today, most of which typically claim to be the Word of God. But paraphrases by nature are not the Words of God, but the words of men; a commentary on what God said, presented in modern and simplistic language which makes lost people feel better than actually reading God’s Words. Since people that have actually been saved from sin crave the Word of God by nature (1Pe_1:23; 1Pe_2:2-3) and set their heart on “every Word” (Mat_4:4/ Luk_4:4) God speaks, it is no surprise when modern christianity does not notice or mind at all when they are absent in paraphrases.

   Rather than being what God actually said, paraphrases are typically what modern christianity has reinterpreted to be what they want God to have meant, styled in standard chapter and verse divisions to convince the reader that the text is actually presenting to them something of the Bible in modern English. But they often do not even come close to what God actually said, and many times they completely reverse and contradict what is clearly contained in Scripture in a given verse or passage.

In more recent times it has become progressively more acceptable as a standard practice in modern christianity to lie when promoting paraphrased versions as the Bible, by falsely calling them “translations,” (compare TLB with NLT). Much like the heretics of old (such as the Gnostics) these creative “free thinking” authors often write their own spiritual ideas and whimsical interpretations down, and when they have composed their own works into marketable post-modern literature, they turn around and tag an authoritative name to it so that people will ascribe Divine authority to human fabrications. This type of thing is called a pseudonym!

   As heretics embellished and manipulated wicked creative falsehoods into distorted copies of the writings of early Church leaders (such as done against the writings of John’s disciple Ignatius) and as others, with even worse guilt, deceptively promoted their heretical “gospels” under the names of many of the Apostles, so also many modern paraphrases essentially promote their false creations under the pseudonym of the Bible.

   As falsehood always takes pleasure in the many masses it deceives, so also many paraphrases rob the gullible and are made rich off of the hurt of many by selling (counterfeited) “bible versions”:

Jer_8:8 CAB How will you say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen.

And this is comparable to this Scripture:

Jer_23:30 CAB Behold, I am therefore against the prophets, says the Lord God, that steal My words everyone from his neighbor.

(Also see Eze_13:8)

Please see the summaries for the main-stream paraphrases below, including:

TLB,” “NLT,” MSG, GNB, “GOD'S WORD

Note:

Though NIV and ESV do much evil in paraphrasing, they do have some translation included as well in addition to this, and because of this, they are not quite as bad as most paraphrases.

Also see:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html

TLB

What is called “The Living Bible” (“TLB” or sometimes “LB”) is an early and popular paraphrase, which is actually the original version of the “NLT.” In the case of the (original) “living bible,” the title is clearly marked to show what type of work it is (which I have underlined):

“THE LIVING BIBLE

PARAPHRASED

“despite the claims made by the publisher in its advertisements, very few scholars have given any encouragement to its use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it. There are many problems. These involve much more than the general blurring and loss of significant details which must always accompany a reduction in reading-level. This loss of detail is regrettable enough; but aside from that, Taylor's version contains venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve. Some of the misinterpretations are downright ludicrous…”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/lbp.html

It is very helpful to read the extensive work in the above link exposing the many problems and sins involved with this paraphrase.

Also:

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

NLT

What is called “The New Living Translation” (NLT) is one of the most malicious books available today, especially since even the very name itself is a lie, as much as it is one of the more notable paraphrases to claim to be a translation. Because the “living bible” was often easily recognized and dismissed as “just a paraphrase,” they decided to lie when they updated it by calling it a “translation,” without changing the very basic and foundational nature of paraphrasing done throughout the entire body of the text.

In many ways, the NLT seems to have played a significant part in the modern popular lying streak of promoting paraphrases as translations.

The so-called “NLT” claims that it is “New,” by the name itself, and by their claim that it is an entirely new Translation (in their press release), but it is essentially a reorganizing of the same compromised matter as the original “living bible” (since it retains all of the original sinful ideals and practices as done previously, only with more worldly “scholarship”; See the link below for more on this).

·        It says that it is “Living” but Jesus says that a person LIVES “upon every spoken word [ῥήματι] that goes out through [διὰ] the mouth of God,” (Mat_4:4 Jos.Trans.; from Deu_8:3, and also found in Luk_4:4). Thankfully we have so many of these living Words written down for us in the Bible.

·        Jesus says we LIVE “upon every…word” not by every paraphrase and distortion of what we think God meant, (which comes out of our very own heart)!

·        People who like Jesus hang on every word He speaks. People who hate Jesus are often infatuated with the sick paraphrases our culture has apostate unto.

>>! See insp: 1/15/11

The so-called NLT says it is a “Translation” but the very fact that it is an update to the “living bible” (which everyone knows is a paraphrase) should show us up front that something is wrong, and a very brief perusal of the text quickly confirms it to be nothing of a Translation (e.g. Jas 1:1).

So this fraud is neither “New” nor “Living” nor a “Translation.” The very name is a lie, and so is the nature of much of its contents!

Instead of being called,

“The New Living Translation

It ought to be called,

“The Old Dead Paraphrase” – Remix

Note:

What is called the NLT was first published, copyrighted and disguised as a translation in 1996.  In 2004 a revision was released (sometimes called “NLTse” for “second edition”), and then again in 2007 a few smaller updates were made and released.

I would say that the latest updates have made some overall improvements, yet still without repenting of the overall sin of publishing a paraphrase and calling it a translation. 

Although the NLT is perhaps somewhat more accurate after these revisions, in some cases, apparently the contaminated genius of the scholars involved polluted the text to be even worse off than it was before, as can be seen in first Corinthians 7:15, where now a contradiction against Paul’s own words is inserted into the paraphrase so that the verse says the opposite of what the Apostle teaches in the rest of the chapter.

Paraphrasing is bad enough, but how much worse is it when a writer of Scripture is made out to directly contradict himself, within the same chapter?  At least with this particular passage, this reverse paraphrasing is more of a direct attack on the truth of the Scriptures than the first, more paraphrased edition of the NLT.

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

Also consider this very helpful link:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.”

MSG

>> add: Examples of heresy:

The Message says, “Do you think anyone is going to be able to drive a wedge between us and Christ’s love for us? There is no way! Not trouble, not hard times, not hatred, not hunger, not homelessness, not bullying threats, not backstabbing, not even the worst sins listed in Scripture.” But sin is absent from the list Paul gives of that which can separate us from God. Paul says that nothing external can separate us from the love of God. But sin will sparate you from God. Eugene Peterson says that not even the worst sins listed in Scripture can separate us from God, while the prophet Isaiah says, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).

http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/2016/07/01/bono-eugene-peterson-twisting-psalms/

The Message (MSG) is a bad but popular, main-stream paraphrase of the Bible by Eugene Peterson, which was published in stages from 1993 to 2002.  However, out of all of the paraphrases, it is perhaps the least malicious and deceptive in its original intensions, particularly because in publishing it as a paraphrase the author has stated that he did not intend it to replace the actual Bible (as seen below).

    However, despite the apparent lack of malicious intentions in the MSG that are typical of most other paraphrases, there are many things that are very evident, disturbing, and fearful concerning how this version has come together, even in the author’s own words in his answers to questions in christianity today:

“I just kind of let go and became playful. And that was when the Sermon on the Mount started. I remember I was down in my basement study, and I did the Beatitudes in about 10 minutes. And all of a sudden I realized this could work.”

For those who have an honest, emotional attachment to the truth of Jesus, these kinds of comments make your stomach sink. 

Later, the author says:

“…there's more of an imagination and a poetic aspect to it, because you're trying to recreate those rhythms or those images and metaphors in this culture. I don't think I could have done this if I wasn't a pastor.”

But thankfully, one of the most honest things the author says is:

“I would never recommend it be used as saying, ‘Hear the Word of God from The Message.’ But it surprises me how many do. You can't tell people they can't do it.”

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/october7/33.107.html

Copyright* notice (for the digital copy I refer to):

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

“THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language

This edition issued by contractual arrangement with NavPress, a division of The Navigators, U.S.A.  Originally published by NavPress in English as THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language copyright 2002 by Eugene Peterson.  All rights reserved.” *

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%28Bible%29

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

GNB, TEV

The “Good News Bible” (GNB), is an early and very popular paraphrase, and has spread among many groups (including catholic and Protestant) in many countries. The GNB was originally released in 1966 as the New Testament under the name “Good News for Modern Man”, and then later temporarily renamed, “Today's English Version” (TEV), but as of 2001 it is now being falsely marketed as a translation under the title, “the Good News Translation” (GNT; not to be confused with the Greek New Testament which may also be abbreviated as GNT).

    This renaming of paraphrases using the pseudonym of “translation” is the same deception that has been popularized for general use by paraphrases as a whole, so that they are accepted as the actual Bible, and not just regarded as paraphrases.

    Unfortunately, perhaps somewhat related to its wide acceptance among catholics, since 1979 the GNB is one of the only mainline versions used among Protestants which has been bold enough to now include their paraphrase of what is commonly called “the Apocrypha”. As far as I know, as far as mainline versions go that are used by Protestants, the ESV may be the only other mainline version available to now have surpassed the GNB in including “nonstandard” texts in their bible.

Compare: CEV

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

Read

http://www.bible-researcher.com/tev.html

CEV

Contemporary English Version (1991, 1995) – another bad paraphrase which is comparable to the GNB, except that it is designed for a 4th grade reading level. The GNB and the CEV are both produced by “the American Bible Society”

Read

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cev.html

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

others:

http://www.google.com/search?q=CEV+researcher&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls={moz:distributionID}:{moz:locale}:{moz:official}&client=firefox-a

“GOD'S WORD”

What is falsely called “GOD'S WORD” as a bible version is a very early and very bad paraphrase mostly produced by the God's Word to the Nations bible Society.  It is one of the earliest paraphrases in our era to claim to be a translation.

    The first publication of this version was published in 1963 by a Lutheran pastor and seminary professor named William F. Beck, under the title, “The New Testament in the Language of Today: An American Translation.” But in 1966, before Mr. Beck could finish the publication of the next release that would include the entire bible (including the old testament), he died. So, two of his friends who were helping him with this project (Elmer Smick and Erich Kiehl) published it after his death as “An American Translation (AAT)”. 

I understand from Wikipedia that since these early times mentioned above, many changes have been made:

1982-1988  First revision titled “New Testament: God's Word to the Nations” (GWN)

1990 – Renamed “the New Evangelical Translation” (NET)

1992 – New thorough revision efforts began

1994 – Renamed “GOD'S WORD”

1994-1995 – Published by “World Bible Publishers”

2003 – Publishing rights acquired by “Green Key Books”

2008 – Publishing rights acquired by “Baker Publishing Group”

The end result was a very bad and deceptive paraphrase.

As with a number of other paraphrases, the irony here is that the name itself is a lie! This version is not God’s Words, but man’s words about God’s Words, since it is simply a bad paraphrase with destructive effects on misrepresenting God’s actual Word to the readers.

    This may be one of the worst paraphrases in terms of its content, since it is in a number of cases blasphemous against the Scriptures, even speaking against the Words of Jesus and contradicting His teachings (e.g. Mat_5:32; and compare the “Word Study” dictionary)!

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

Copyright*

[* See “Copyrights In General”]

GOD'S WORD

Copyright © 1995 by GOD'S WORD to the Nations Bible Society. All rights reserved.

GOD'S WORD to the Nations Bible Society

P.O. Box 30699

Cleveland, Ohio 44130-0699

http://www.godsword.org” *

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Word_Translation_%28GW%29

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

NCV – New Century Version

A paraphrase originally produced mainly through the “Churches of Christ” by the World Bible Translation Center in Ft. Worth, Texas, (But the NCV is now printed by Thomas Nelson Publishers). This version has had its name changed several times:

(1) 1978 – English Version for the Deaf (EVD)

(2) 1980 – Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

(3) 1983 – International Children's Version New Testament

(4) 1984 – The Word: New Century Version

(5) 1986 – The Holy Bible, International Children's Version

(6) 1987 – New Century Version

In 1991, among its many periphrastic heresies, it (along with the simplified ICB) seems to be the first complete version in English to seek to erase gender-specific language in the Bible.

>> Copy right?: Ervin Bishop et al., The Holy Bible - New Century Version. Ft. Worth, Texas: Worthy Publishing, 1987.

Please be sure to read and compare what is written on “paraphrases” above.

See:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ncv.html

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

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Century-Version-NCV-Bible/

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Strong’s

“Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890.” *

>> Add Thayer:

For this reason, I would encourage you not to rely on Thayer because he is frequently very sloppy, and nearly never lets you know what the actual word is, and will not give you the honesty you need. Strong’s also falls a little short in this case, but it is usually much more reliable than Thayer. But in any case,

When we quote “Strong’s” we are referring to the most historically established original language Concordance for the KJV Bible, and the most famous Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament dictionaries used to define Hebrew and Greek Bible words, which have been in use since they were compiled by James Strong (1822–1894).

For more information, and to actually use this dictionary, go to:

www.TrueConnection.org/strongs

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

How to Read Strong’s

The following was originally* provided toward the beginning of Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, and was slightly clarified by an unnamed author as provided in e-Sword Bible software.

[* To see the original text for these symbols see the bottom of page 6 in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary, and also compare the bottom of page 6 in Strong’s Greek dictionary (both of which are located after the main “Concordance” toward the end of the book)]

“Signs Employed

+ (addition) denotes a rendering in the Authorized Version of one or more Hebrew/Greek words in connection with the one under consideration.

X (multiplication) denotes a rendering in the Authorized Version that results from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew/Greek.

ş (degree), appended to a Hebrew word, denotes a vowel-pointing corrected from that of the text. (This mark is set in Hebrew Bibles over syllables in which the vowels of the margin have been inserted instead of those properly belonging to the text.)

( ) (parenthesis), in the renderings from the Authorized Version, denotes a word or syllable sometimes given in connection with the principal word to which it is annexed.

[ ] (bracket), in the rendering from the Authorized Version, denotes the inclusion of an additional word in the Hebrew/Greek.

Italics, at the end of a rendering from the Authorized Version, denote an explanation of the variations from the usual form.” *

>> Add: to use Strong’s correctly, you have to actually trace the words that it gives. In this case and most all others, you cannot just “look up the word,” you have to keep looking when you get there: notice the Strong’s refers you to other words:

G2150 > G2152 > G2095 + G4576

The last two numbers represent what this compound word actually says: good (G2095) + reverence (σέβειαν – G4576)

[Note: you can do this in e-Sword by ctr+clicking on the G-numbers given in the Strong’s definitions after looking up the first word – and I highly recommend this for any word you want to really understand; if you do this, then all of the Strong’s definitions can make much more sense after seeing where each word part came from]

***********

Incorporate one day?: – Some Basics about Greek

***********

Note: the definition that you had copied and pasted was not a definition but a ‘commentary explanation’. You cannot rely upon anything that is willing to insert paraphrases in place of definitions. Using Strong’s would give you more of an actual definition, because Strong’s is not nearly as modern and periphrastic (Strong’s is the one listed at the very bottom of that link: http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4442.htm)

I would say that there is not much in the Greek word itself to say what the "fire" [πῦρ (púr)] refers to, because it is almost as simple as saying "fire" in other languages (except for things like the fact that what we call the 'electricity' of lightening they saw as "fire" as well) – it is important when reading Strong's (and even more so with modern periphrastic ‘dictionaries’ like the one you looked at) to be sensitive to the fact that, that which we identify as the ‘definitions’ are often not direct meanings but rather, *different applications* of words in different contexts. These are ‘implications in some contexts’ more than “definitions” for each Word. Example: "fire" never "means" "the heat of the sun," but it may be used to address heat from the sun, while still retaining the core meaning of "fire" (i.e. Rev_16:8). Fire never means a trial, but is sometimes used to illustrate a trial, by comparing the trial to actual “fire.” This is an extremely important aspect of Greek (and often language in general) that many people violate on a regular basis (sometimes due to lack of knowledge, and other times due to lack of integrity).

Keep in mind that even when reading Strong’s to try and find the core meaning, and be aware that the ‘expanded’ meanings are implications given by the contexts of the Biblical passages in which it is found in, not by the word itself. With Strong’s, this generally is not an ‘error’ that Strong’s made, but a misunderstanding that people often make about the nature of what Mr. Strong has presented to us. Strong’s actually gives you special symbols in his definitions to help you read and understand these things.

 

Moral Errors in Strong’s Dictionary

 

G1374 δίψυχος dipsuchos dip'-soo-khos

From G1364 and G5590; two spirited, that is, vacillating (in opinion or purpose): - double minded.

 

>>Scrip:

>> Let God be true and every man a liar

 

Berry Greek-English Lexicon

Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, by George Ricker Berry, PH.D.

Of the University of Chicago and Colgate University Department of Semitic Language

As found in the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by George Ricker Berry

This is commonly found as a work included within Mr. Berry’s Interlinear New Testament (see IGNT)

Word Study

This is the only resource that I ever paid money for to have in e-Sword, and I might say that as a whole, this resource could be useful for gaining an overview and insightful analysis of Hebrew and Greek words before doing hefty research yourself, but there are some serious problems with this work that are evidently helping countless people reproduce heresy.

    One clear and primary example of heresy is their entry on G3429 (concerning the Greek word for “adultery”), where their article is clearly heretical and demonic in trying to oppose practically everything Jesus teaches in the passages about divorce and remarriage (and this heresy which is first aimed at Mat_5:32 is somewhat represented and expanded in the so-called “God's Word” bible version). This teaching is the worst of the worst when it comes to today’s teaching to allow divorce and remarriage. With this particular case, their article is not about the facts surrounding the Greek language (as one may suppose), nor even about the truth in general that may come to bear on this Greek word for adultery (G3429), but the unreasoning propaganda that presupposes Jesus Words prohibiting divorce and remarriage to be irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to remarriage in as much as they conclude and try to establish that divorce and remarriage is quite frequently not really adultery like Jesus said it was.

    Although there may be many concerns over the current corruptions in Word Study, I have documented and shown that Edward Robinson (1794–1863), was certainly not guilty of this same modern heresy in his much older Greek Lexicon, even though they say that Word Study is based on it. But because of whatever modern writers have done to enhance and or corrupt Mr. Robinson’s original work to make their own dictionary, I cannot at all recommend the spiritual content of what we have now in Word Study because of these serious problems introduced by the revisers. If you ever refer to it, please be warned and guard against serious falsehoods and heresy.

    I would say that it seems in cases like the one described previously, if truth clearly dictates against the religion of the revisers, you cannot count on them to present the facts with integrity, but instead, in a small number of cases in particular, they abuse their position as “educators” and find extremely smart-sounding reasons to de-educate their readers by trying to undermine and deny well-established and clear truths that are in their way, and they will even violate the very Words of God in the Scriptures to do this.

Other heresies that I have come across include:

G1242; G868 >> find others! Where have I kept these??

G720 denying Jesus’ saying that believers would go to hell

H5397 -- suggesting that the spirit and soul are the same????

The first part of their own summary is as follows:

“The Complete Word Study Dictionary

© 1992 By AMG International, Inc.
Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.
Revised edition, 1993

No portion of these study helps may be reproduced by any means without express written permission of the publishers except when quoted in brief reviews.

Based on the lexicon of Edward Robinson (as revised by Alexander Negris and John Duncan), with constant reference to and citations from the works of John Parkhurst and Hermann Cremer. Greek words in the text are transliterated and coded throughout according to the numbering system found in James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

General Editor: Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D.
Managing Editor: Warren Baker, D.R.E.
Associate Editor: Rev. George Hadjiantoniou, Ph.D.” *

To see the relative innocents of Edward Robinson, compare :

www.TrueConnection.org/goto/g3429

Also Compare:

Strong’s; Koine Greek, LXX, RMAC, GNT

http://www.e-sword.net/wordstudy.html

RMAC

“Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes” (RMAC) is an ancient language dictionary of grammar (a “grammatical lexicon”) which summarizes many grammatical factors for every time a Greek word is used in the Bible, in the form of abbreviations or “Morphological Analysis Codes.” This makes RMAC a very useful tool for considering the implications of Greek grammar in a particular usage which goes beyond the generic Greek definition (the “lexical definition”) of each word. I sometimes use this established convention of abbreviations for representing very technical details about Greek. Simply put, this allows us to make very brief notations about some advanced Greek details (unique to each usage of each word) that Strong’s simply cannot cover for each reference, because Greek is such a complicated language.

    With RMAC we are not just talking about the dictionary (or “lexical”) definition, (which is mostly what you can find in Strong’s), but with RMAC we are addressing the actual specific “form” (which is called a “lemma”) of the word in a particular usage (sort of like conjugation in Spanish) which carries specific grammatical details with it which are usually impossible to specifically cover in the dictionary definition of the word.

    In Greek, every time a word is used, it has unique grammatical qualities of Tense, Voice, Mood, Number, and Person, which make this language much more complicated and specific than English, Spanish, or even Hebrew, when it comes to considering the embedded grammar of Greek used throughout the entire Greek Bible. This complexity, along with other factors, makes RMAC have about 1,100 distinct grammar codes that can be applied throughout the GNT and LXX (compare ALS later). You can imagine how impractical it would be to try to cram all of that in each Strong’s definition!

>> Give a list of examples (the) same Greek word with different tags – This is why a Greek word often looks somewhat different than the form that you see in Strong’s

Here is the information that came with this tool:

“Morphological Analysis Codes for use with the Greek New Testaments containing parsing or declension codes.

Derived, compared and corrected from the Bagster ‘Analytical Greek Lexicon,’ with comparison made against Perschbacher's ‘New Analytical Greek Lexicon’.  Abbreviated in a form similar to that found in Friberg's ‘Analytical Greek New Testament’.”*

For more see:

http://www.byztxt.com/download/index.html#byzdownloads

Compare:

Strong’s; ALS; Koine Greek, LXX, GNT

ALS

Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint (ALS)

A Complete Parsing Guide by Bernard Alwyn Taylor

ALS is a somewhat advanced Greek dictionary and grammar tool for researching the Greek Old Testament (LXX) with features that work somewhat like a combination of Strong’s and RMAC, only with the grammar details spelled out, (as a descendant of “morphological analysis” – see RMAC), and it includes brief and usually more summarized or even paraphrased definitions (as opposed to more direct, literal and exact definitions) of the various Greek words and their many forms (the “lexical forms” are listed, and then fully “parsed”) and in this way, in about 600 (9.25” X 7”) pages, ALS covers the many Greek words and their variations used throughout the LXX.

    Although we have many Greek tools for the GNT, it is helpful to have ALS for the distinct form of Greek that is used in the LXX. Both the GNT and the LXX use Koine Greek, but the LXX uses a slightly different variation of it, including a good number of different Greek words, because LXX Greek is naturally closer to Classical Greek than that which is found in the GNT.  So Strong’s covers the Greek definitions for the NT, while RMAC briefly covers the grammar for the NT and for the most part, that of the OT, and ALS specifically and more descriptively addresses the Greek definitions and grammar for the LXX, including the needs that these first two tools do not cover.

    If someone already knows some basic Greek, with this tool they can analyze the LXX more thoroughly, even where Strong’s does not cover certain older Greek words that are not used in the GNT, and it gives more spelled out details about the Greek forms than that which is abbreviated by RMAC.

Note: The primary compiler of this work, Bernard Alwyn Taylor, was one of the translators for the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)

Compare:

Koine Greek, LXX, RMAC, HOT, GNT, NETS

See:

http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/635167.trade.html

Book Details

Pages: about 600

Pub Date: January 2010

ISBN: 9781565635166

ISBN-13: 9781565635166

Item Number: 635167

Copy Right Notice

Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint: Expanded Edition

© 2009 by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC

Published by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc

P.O. Box 3473

Peabody, MA 01961-3473

www.hendrickson.com

Latin to English

“Latin to English Dictionary v1.97,

http://users.erols.com/whitaker/words.htm

Contact  whitaker@erols.com,or William Whitaker, PO Box 3036, McLean VA 22103 USA.” *

Also see:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en&ie=UTF8#

Did not work:

http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html

Others that are not working:

http://www.lexilogos.com/english/latin_dictionary.htm#

Webster's Dictionary

“Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English” *

MLA

The writing standards of the “Modern Language Association (MLA)” as found on “Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 13 Jul. 2009.”

>> rewrite

www.etymonline.com

Vine’s

OT

VINE'S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY Old Testament by W. E. Vine

Creada/Modificada con [Made/Modified with] Biblos

NT

“These Dictionary topics are from W.E. Vine's M.A., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words published in 1940 and without copyright.”

I understand that there is also a 1981 update to republish Vine’s, but I don’t use it. It is called:

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, copyright 1981; Baker Publishing Co., Ada, Michigan

I do not recommend Vine’s dictionaries, and neither do the other studious writers who know Greek that I am acquainted with. There are a number of striking problems here that it seems a number of people have noticed, including myself. As far as I have read, it seems like you can learn things by reading it, but there is a lot of non-factual guess work that is asserted as fact, which is sometimes potently erroneous.

I welcome the feedback of any other students on this problem.

See:

http://www2.mf.no/bibel/vines.html

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs

Or rather, A Topical Index to the Ante-Nicene Fathers (see below)

David W. Bercot

In general, I appreciate this resource which has been compiled by Mr. Bercot.  It has been very helpful in many unplanned situations where it has been useful to quickly summarize many early church beliefs, especially in a group discussion where we have needed to make brief references to some of the teachings in the early Church.  I also think that it can frequently be a useful tool for anyone who is preparing to do some research on the early Church, and is in need of being pointed in the right direction as to which early writings to read.

    Despite how useful it can be, my primary concern with this work is that in most cases it does not seem to distinguish from some early Church leaders who were helping truth, from those who were often hindering it as subtle heretics of a little later date within the early Church. Thankfully this work does clearly point out that Tertullian fell into a heretical movement, but I have not found any warnings* on other writers such as Clement of Alexandria and his disciple Origen, both of whom basically taught that everyone would eventually go to heaven.

    So in light of these things, use it with some caution of course, but as a whole, I would say that this work is a very helpful dictionary.

(*Note: You can read Mr. Bercot’s reply to these and many other things that he wrote back to me by using the shortcut: www.trueconnection.org/goto/Bercot)

General Use of this Dictionary

After writing Mr. Bercot about a quotation that some people were using out of context, he wrote the following to me, which is very useful if you get to use his dictionary:

         The piece you wrote about this quotation reveals something that I had hoped would not happen:  people are using the quotations without going to the Ante-Nicene Fathers and reading the quotations in their context.

         The Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs was never intended to be what its title implies: a dictionary or encyclopedia of knowledge.  The working title I had given the project was a Topical Index to the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  I didn’t know what title Hendrickson Publishers was going to use until the book was ready to go to press.  The title that Hendrickson gave the work is no doubt more appealing, but it mischaracterizes the intent of this work.  Every quotation contains the volume and page number in the Ante-Nicene Fathers where the reader can find the quotation and read its context.  The reason that information is there is that no quotation—whether from Scripture, the early Christian writers, or whomever—should be relied upon until the reader has searched out and read the passage in its entire context.

    I had written an extensive preface to my Topical Index to the Ante-Nicene Fathers that made this matter quite clear.  Unfortunately, the editors at Hendrickson decided to completely eliminate my preface.  I was able to implore them to allow me to have a short preface, which was used in the final published work.  However, I had to omit a number of things that I felt were important for the reader to know so that he wouldn’t misuse this work.

(David Bercot, Subject: Tertullian quotation on remarriage, Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:28 PM)

You can see more specifics I have written on this at the following link:

www.trueconnection.org/DivorceAndRemarriageBook.com/appendix/ExtraNotesonChurchHistory.html#Tertullian_MisquotedHeretic

You can also read all of these emails that I exchanged with Mr. Bercot in their complete form using the shortcut: www.trueconnection.org/goto/Bercot

Also See:

www.earlychristiandictionary.comEarly Christian Dictionary; this is a free online alternative to A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/more-dictionary.html

Copyright Info:

© 1998 David Bercot

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

P.O. Box 3473

Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 1-56563-357-1

Second Printing – March 1999

The Catholic Encyclopedia

www.newadvent.org is the online version of The Catholic Encyclopedia.

I use this resource for reference purposes only, especially when I want to more fully understand the heresies of catholicism. So please use it with caution, if you use it at all. It should be obvious that I do not support anything catholic (such as the filthy spiritual substance in this encyclopedia) or even protestant, since it is clear that they both oppose the Bible.

Compare: NAB

Wikipedia

Wikipedia.org is a very large free collaborative encyclopedia on the internet that has been compiled by people from all over the world. It “is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). Wikipedia is very useful for learning the basics and getting a beginner’s introduction to many practical things, but at the same time, it is very unreliable when it comes to determining truth since it is very committed to being biased in promoting the religions of Humanism and Darwinism (that is, Macroevolution).

    It should not surprise anyone when religious pagans break their own rules of so-called “neutrality” on controversial articles to protect the sense of “consensus” within their own unsound religion, and this is exactly what Wikipedia is prone toward when it comes to truth. On the other hand, because they are frequently committed to opposing what they think is “orthodox christianity” they sometimes accidentally tell useful truth, since they are actually just opposing modern christianity. The World says that “even a broken clock is right twice a day” and because pagans cannot tell the difference between Biblical-historical Christianity and modern christianity, Wikipedia often accidentally defends real christians when they are trying to attack truth.

Back to TOP

Commentaries

The following is mostly a summary of the available commentaries in e-Sword, which I may or may not use, reference or quote throughout my research and writings.

    If you have any comments that you would like me to note or add to any of these commentaries, please let me know.

    Jesus is my source for all wisdom and truth, but maybe He will use people at times as a means of communicating information to us, and in my case, I may occasionally use these tools to spur me on as to where or what to do further reading on, especially in the original ancient sources.

Talmud

The Talmud is the official, ancient and comprehensive Jewish ‘commentary’ on the Law of Moses, compiled over a span from about 200-500 A.D.. It is made up of the following elements:

(1) Mishnah – this is said to be ‘the oral Law reduced to writing’ (first published around 200 A.D.)

(2) Gemara – This is a compilation of all the Rabbis discussing the Mishnah over hundreds of years (till about 500 A.D.)

When these were combined, they formed the Talmud. So Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, and the Mishnah is an oral ‘commentary’ of the Law of Moses.

Unless otherwise specified, I usually use the following English version available at www.halakhah.com:

Soncino Babylonian Talmud

Translated Into English

With Notes, Glossary

And Indices

Under The Editorship Of

Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein

B.a., Ph.D., D. Lit.

Foreword By

The Very Rev. The Late Chief Rabbi

Dr. J. H. Hertz”

(this quote is reformatted by Josiahs Scott)

Barnes

“Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Albert Barnes (1798-1870)” *

Clarke

“Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832)” *

Lightfoot

“John Lightfoot,

A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.” *

Lightfoot’s commentary can be helpful for seeing some summaries of the Talmud and Hebrew thought, but he also promotes a number of unsound and lawless teachings in the name of Jesus that are plainly contrary to Jesus’ teaching on marriage.

Geneva

“1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes” *

Gill

“John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)” *

Henry

“Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)” *

“Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible” *

JFB

“Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible” *

K&D

“Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)” *

PNT

“The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson” *

Psalms

“The Treasury of David

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)” *

RWP

“WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

by

Archibald Thomas Robertson” *

Scofield

Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)

by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921)” *

I would never promote this wicked man nor his commentary, especially because of the guilt from his crimes against man-kind for spreading dispensational heresy throughout American christianity, and for whatever effect this has had on the rest of the world. This wicked man wrote out his heresies and anti-Bible commentaries as an unrepentant adulterer1 and it is reported that his second woman (disguised as a wife) even helped him edit his works (see Wikipedia link below).

I may quote this work at times to expose some of the streams and original sources of heresy and corruption in modern christianity.

Compare:

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

Footnote

1. To better understand the phrase “unrepentant adulterer” see:

www.DivorceAndRemarriageBook.com

>> Personal Notes:

I need people to read these and check on the facts

7th day people:

http://www.threeangels.com.au/Books/0975.PDF

http://www.threeangels.com.au/Books/0976.PDF

TSK

“Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others about 1880, with introduction by R. A. Torrey.” *

“…five-hundred thousand scripture references and parallel passages…”

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModInfo.jsp?modName=TSK

“The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge has provided a cross-reference resource for Bible students worldwide for generations. The commentary contains over 500,000 entries with chronological data, chapter introductions, key word listings, and illustrative notes, as well as a series of scholars' notes and comments. This highly respected and nearly exhaustive compilation was developed by R.A. Torrey from references in Thomas Scott's Commentary and the Comprehensive Bible.”

http://www.biblewithyou.com/product.php?id=cmn_tsk_ppc

“No serious Bible student should ever be without a thorough, well-chosen set of cross references. As R. A. Torrey states in his introduction to The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, or TSK: “There is no other commentary on the Bible so helpful as the Bible itself.” Using cross references allows the Bible to speak for itself, to be its own interpreter. This is the surest and most accurate method of Bible study. Torrey’s statement echoes the apostle Peter, who said, “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came from the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20). To have a rich, detailed, and perceptively compiled set of cross references is to have a treasure indeed, for it makes the revelation contained in the Bible come alive.

The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge is the best known and most widely used collection of Bible cross-references. Compiled by several authors, the work includes 500,000 Scripture references and parallel passages. It has been incorporated with most electronic Bible collections as a highly useful means of Bible interpretation.”

http://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=16680

Also see:

(A) R.A. Torrey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A._Torrey

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

(B) Thomas Scott (commentator)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Scott_%28commentator%29

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

WEN

“John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible” *

Back to TOP

Early Church Resources

Most all of the writings we have from the early church leaders can be found in a number of places. Here are a few of them that I think are helpful, both online and in print:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers

“Ante-Nicene Fathers,

Edited by Allan Menzies, D.D.

American Edition, 1896 and 1897

Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight” *

Online at:

www.ccel.org/fathers.html

(Note: In Contrast to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, from this same link you can also compare what are called, the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)

Also: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/

I mostly use the free Bible software called e-Sword, as an interface to view the 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers:

www.e-sword.net/extras.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.toc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers

Others

A Catholic Alphabetical Listing, including very good and very bad church leaders in history:

www.newadvent.org/fathers

Also See: “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” (given previously)

Back to TOP

General Glossary of Terminology Used

Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical Books

If you would like to know more about these “extra” books of the Bible that Protestants have removed, then please visit the following link:

www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/FAQs.html#Deuterocanonical

De-education

De-education is a term that I hope to coin at some point in my lifetime to vividly incriminate intellectual crimes against learners, by people who abuse their positions of influence and education to hijack the uninformed. De-educators exploit the common ignorance of the average person to establish ridiculous and foolish notions, and teach the exact opposite of the most basic, fundamental, and obvious realities of life.

Examples include: The religion of Darwinism, theologians and scholars with their cemeteries and universities, and anyone else that gives you intellectual and elaborate reasons to believe the ridiculous and irrational guesses, philosophies and religions of men that defy all reason.

Col_2:18 KJV  Let no man beguile you… intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind…

2Ti_3:7-9 CAB always learning and never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth.  8  And in just the way Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, thus also these resist the truth: men corrupted in mind, disapproved regarding the faith.  9  But they shall not advance further, for their folly shall be manifest to all, as also theirs became.

Let us not be found guilty of maliciously molesting the minds of the simple, nor of being gullible to the ridiculous and irrational whims of reckless religions and their vain indoctrinations, lest we confidently walk about as “The Emperor Who had no Clothes,” and proudly go about glorying in the fantasy fairytale that we have lost our minds in order to believe.

e-Sword

e-Sword is free Bible software from www.e-Sword.net.

It is by far, one of the best Bible software in the world that I know of, and it and its many primary resources are all free. Proprietary versions (such as NKJV and others) can also be purchased and added in as well, but all of the resources that you really need are all free. Most of the Bible versions that I reference or use are conveniently available for download as add-ins to this extremely helpful software, including many different languages, such as Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, Chinese, and many more.

In my judgment, if you have a capable computer, then you need to download and install e-Sword.

Picture of my (older) installation of e-Sword:

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: ~MyBitmap

e-Sword – Free Resources

To obtain many more free e-Sword resources, go to places like:

www.biblesupport.com

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/E-Sword_Modules.htm

If you find other recommended websites, please let me know.

e-Sword Compatible

When I say that a resource is “e-Sword Compatible,” this means that if you copy content from that resource, and then paste it into the “Study Notes” area of e-Sword, then, within this content, each verse reference or Strong’s dictionary reference, will become an instant link to whatever location in the Bible or Greek or Hebrew Dictionary that each reference points to, in whatever version you choose to view them. These references will then operate not only like links to each and every Bible or dictionary passage when you click on them, but also, if you simply put your mouse over each reference, it will pop up in a tool tip so that you can skim through a large amount of references very quickly.

1. Copy Content from e-Sword Compatible Bible study:

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: ~MyBitmap

2. Paste content into e-Sword “Study Notes”:

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: ~MyBitmap

3. All Scripture references should now work as “live” shortcuts in e-Sword:

(A) Simply put mouse over reference to see it “pop up” (in a “tool tip”)

(B) Click on each reference to go to the entire passage (see left pane)

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: ~MyBitmap

Firefox Note:

If you use Firefox to view the Bible study (as shown in the picture previously), then you might want to paste the Bible study into Microsoft Word first before pasting it into e-Sword so that it will retain the formatting

How Does this work?

It is all about formatting each Scripture reference to be “e-Sword Compatible”:

Instead of writing “1Cor 7:39” write “1Co_7:39” and then you can have this pop-up effect in e-Sword’s “Personal Notes.”

To see a list of all the abbreviations that you would need to use to make this happen for yourself, go to “Bible Book Abbreviations” (toward the beginning of the Bibliography).

Example of an e-Sword Compatible Bible study:

http://www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/Prayer_Lists.htm

Koine Greek

Koine Greek (Ελληνιστική Κοινή) means “Common Greek” because it became the shared (or “common”), universal, vernacular language (or “Lingua Franca”) for the then known world of the Roman Empire and it was used for about 300 years before and after the time that Jesus and His Apostles were preaching, teaching and writing. Because Koine Greek was comparable to how English is today for most modern countries, it (with the exceptions of at least Matthew and Hebrews), was the original language of the New Testament (see GNT) and it was also essentially the same version of Greek that was used for the Greek Old Testament (LXX) which was translated into this language about 200 years before the New Testament was written. 

Koine Greek is distinct from other historical forms of Greek, such as Classical Greek, which came before it, and Modern Greek, which came after it and is still used to this day.

Compare:

LXX, GNT, ALS

Lexicon

A lexicon is essentially an ancient language dictionary, which often has unique, advanced and or thorough features for understanding or even translating a language or dialect that is no longer spoken or in use.

Compare:

Dictionaries

Martin Luther

Although Martin Luther (1483-1546) is known best for pioneering the Protestant Reformation, the well-established history of his ungodly and scandalous nature is almost entirely swept under the rug in churches today. Despite this fact, it is very easy to pull up the surplus amount of information available about his life and the unrighteous works that he did. For example, one such work is infamously known as On the Jews and their Lies, in which Luther displays potent hatred of Jews and advocates social and even governmental violence against them as a whole (see the work I compiled called “Luther Quotes”). This includes explicitly calling for the burning of the synagogues, which was fulfilled in the days of Hitler on Martin Luther’s birthday (11/10/1938). This tragic event is known as Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) because of all the glass that was shattered in mass violence against the Jews living in Germany. Luther called for violence from Germany against the Jews in the 1500s and Hitler (also in Germany) fulfilled Luther’s “advice” in the 1900s, and the Nazi Party as a whole along with others in Germany consistently used Luther’s Quotes to justify this violent and horrific anti-Semitism throughout the country.

After calling the Jews a, “miserable and accursed people,” in his work called, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) Luther says in Part XI:

“...I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...”

Then, after equating the Jews with “the devil,” Luther says in Part XII:

“My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

...Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard...

...But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret... ...So let us beware... we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country...”

(Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, translated by Martin H. Bertram, emphasis added)

Do I even need to mention any more about how wicked Luther was after including these disturbing words? But in addition to all of this, Luther also had a characteristic temper, and immoral vocabulary that regularly flowed from his foul mouth and throughout his harsh writings. Corruption and bold vulgarity continually marked his path, and one can hardly read many of his writings without running into these things.

    Among his many heretical exploits, especially at the beginning, Luther rejected the book of Esther (along with minimizing the books that are called “the Apocrypha”), as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament in his German version of the Bible known as, the “German Luther Bible” (GLB).

This bible version played a key role in Luther’s invention and promotion of the doctrine of “faith alone” in at least two major ways:

1. Initially, he rejected the book of James with harsh words, including calling it an “epistle of straw” (compare 1Co_3:11-15). One reason being that it explicitly says that a person is not justified by faith alone:

Jas_2:24

Greek

καὶ

οὐκ

ἐκ

πίστεως

mόνον

(GNT)

English

and

not

out of

faith

alone/only

(Jos.Trans.)

Luther makes similar mistranslations in places like Rom_1:17 (“a righteousness from God”) to saturate readers minds with a theme that is not in these passages.

2. In addition to rejecting the entire book of the Bible that explicitly says ‘you are not saved by faith alone’ (James), Luther also inserted the word “alone” into the book of Romans in his German version to make the readers think that the Bible actually teaches this doctrine.

A real translation (in English) reads:

Rom_3:28 CAB  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

But in his German version, Luther added the word “alone” (allein) in conjunction with the word for “faith” or “belief” (glauben):

Rom_3:28 GLB So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

And there is nothing at all in the Greek to support this addition:

Rom_3:28

German

allein

durch

-

den

glauben

(GLB)

English

alone

through

then

the

belief/faith

(A Friend’s

Translation)

Greek

-

*

οὖν

-

πίστει

(GNT)

* The word “through” (or “durch”) is reasonable for English and German, but is represented by other factors without using a specific word in the original Greek of this verse. But the addition of “alone” (allein), is totally dishonest and deceptive with no basis at all, except the lust of the mistranslator.

What Do We Say To All of This?

Everything mentioned above about Luther is only a very concise summary of the major points that shed light on his dark character. All of these things and many more disturbing details are easy to find with a very little research (see below).

    In light of all of this, it is abundantly clear that Luther was not a real Christian at all, and since he hated Jesus so much in these ways, I would urge and beg the reader of these things to diligently search their life and heart to be sure that they have zealously repented of any of the filth of Luther and modern christianity, since it is abundantly clear that this is not the Christianity that Jesus and the Bible preach to us at all! May no one who reads this be found as Luther was, with a lot of theology but no faith that would save him from a life given over to gross sin, but may we instead take hold of a real, obedient, clean and righteous faith in Jesus, rather than praising with our approval the counterfeits and scandals of Luther, Protestantism, and the eventual result of the modern church.

To Find Out More:

As with many overt and extreme scandalous heretics, the most incriminating and shocking conformation of sin that one can read about Luther is not what others have written about him, but by reading his very own words, as we have already seen previously.

The following web page is a companion resource called, “Luther Quotes” that I have compiled to document in more detail some of the things that I have briefly stated here in explaining Luther:

www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/Luther_Quotes.html

And compare:

www.TrueConnection.org/BibleStudies/Love_Israel.html

Also see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

NT

NT is simply an abbreviation for the “New Testament.”

Compare:

GNT, OT, Strong’s

Origen

www.TrueConnection.org/DivorceAndRemarriageBook.com/appendix/Historical_Teaching.html#Origen

www.trueconnection.org/DivorceAndRemarriageBook.com/appendix/ExtraNotesonChurchHistory.html#Origen

OTOld Testament

OT is simply an abbreviation for the “Old Testament.”

Compare:

ALS, HOT, LXX, NT

Pseudonym

A pseudonym is a falsely applied name. The false use of a name is usually done creatively to exploit the commonly perceived authoritativeness or reputation of a prominent figure, in promoting one’s own personal ambition, and historically, often including the spread of their own personal writings.

Writing under pseudonyms is one of the more potent ways that heretics have polluted ignorant and weak people into gross heresy in mockery of Christianity (see 2Th_2:1-2; 2Pe_2:1-3, 2Pe_2:18 and also Eph_5:6; 2Ti_3:6; 2Pe_3:17).

Compare:

Paraphrases

Proprietary Bible Versions

Proprietary Bible versions are typically main-stream modern Bible versions that are not in public domain, which usually cost money to obtain in print or most other forms.  But for researching and referencing purposes, instead of purchasing a particular version, it can often be better to use a number of select Bible websites where you can view them and reference them for free.

Examples of proprietary Bible versions include NIV, NKJV, the so called “NLT,” and most all other main-stream Bible versions.

Back to TOP


 

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: TrueConnection.org – free Bible studies

Copyright © Josiahs Scott, All rights reserved (see below)

The only reason I put this here is to avoid people misusing this work with bad motives. This is officially copyrighted to protect it from those with money in mind, and to preserve it for free distribution, especially in the unlikely event that someone might think to make money off of it rather than maximizing its distribution. You are permitted and encouraged to freely copy and redistribute this work in its entirety, via standard copy machine or electronic documentation as long as you make no money off of it. If you wish to reproduce this work on any larger scale, please contact me at Josiahs@trueconnection.org. You may also quote this document, by citing the reference as:

“[Name of Bible Study]” By Josiahs Scott, www.TrueConnection.org

PersonalNotes
************************************************************
Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Site Meter

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: unique visitors counter

************************************************************

Additions

 

---------------

Doctrine Packet

From internship days, 2003

2/22/17 (recompiled)

 

Evidence Against A Paraphrase

2/22/17 (recompiled)

 

It seams like innocent mistakes at first:

 

This is what it says in Greek:

(KJVA)  James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

 

This is what some paraphrases tell you:

(GW)  From James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. To God's faithful people who have been scattered. Greetings.

 

But when it comes to serious issues: (Jer 3:1)

GW:

A saying: If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, her first husband shouldn't go back to her again. The land would become thoroughly polluted. "You have acted like a prostitute who has many lovers. And now you want to come back to me!" declares the LORD.

BBE:

…will you now come back to me? says the Lord.

CEV: The LORD said to the people of Israel: If a divorced woman marries, can her first husband ever marry her again? No, because this would pollute the land. But you have more gods than a prostitute has lovers. Why should I take you back?

MSG:

And now you want to come back as if nothing had happened." GOD's Decree.

NIV:

…would you now return to Me? Declares the Lord.

ASV: (Compare with NASB!!! \/)

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, will he return unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah.

NASB:

“…Yet you turn to Me…”

WED (is consistent)

“…yet return again to me, says Yahweh.”

What it really says:

“…yet return again to me, says the LORD” (KJV-based).

Even immediate context shows it!:

3:12-13“…Return, you backsliding Israel… Only acknowledge your iniquity… for I am married unto you: and I will take you…” (KJV and any other version will agree)

 

Junk

2/22/17 (recompiled)

1 Corinthians 7:12 

"Now I speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command of the Lord.

… Otherwise, your children would not have a Godly influence, but now they are set apart for him.

 

MSG)  This is how my Father shows who he is--when you produce grapes, when you mature as my disciples.

 

(GW)  But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery. (Twisted From Mtt 5:32)

 

10 times the message distorts Bible verses to say that God had an opinion.

MSG 2Ki. 18:3; 21:20; 23:32, 37; 24:9; 2Ch. 29:2; 33:2, 22; 36:5, 9;

 

 

Supposed Advantages of a Paraphrase

2/22/17 (recompiled)

 

Can help Exegetically?

 

1Tim 1:9 (NIV) We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, [10] for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

 

1Ti 1:10 KJV+  For whoremongers,4205 for them that defile themselves with mankind,733 for menstealers,405 for liars,5583 for perjured persons,1965 and2532 if there be any1536 other thing2087 that is contrary480 to sound5198 doctrine;1319

menstealers405

 

G405 ἀνδραποδιστής andrapodistēs an-drap-od-is-tace'

From a derivative of a compound of G435 and G4228; an enslaver (as bringing men to his feet): - men-stealer.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

 

“…It properly means one who steals another for the purpose of making him a slave - a kidnapper. This is the common way in which people are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have become slaves by being kidnapped.” Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Also it’s in the Law!!!:

Gen 37:27, Gen 40:15; Exo 21:16; Deu 24:7; Rev 18:13

 

 

More:

· “God has called us to be pillars, (Rev 3:12) not pendulums!”

 

·Some one saying how some one got good doctrine:

“He’s pretty well rounded…most of the stuff that he believes is from his own experience.”

 

---------------

 

(1) Add Copyright (kj2000) (2) CAB: Although I certinly don't approve of many parts of this version, it is generally one of the better ones along with WEB (3) Correct statements in the bibliog. about the Talmud

>> Talmud

>> Make this only viewable in print; Move the statement to appx compilation??

>> NASV

>> BWE – Bible in Worldwide English

Eusubius

Eusubius has nothing personally to do with early christianity except he was after that time period and wrote about those things. Eusubius was all involved in the apostasy of Nicaea and was being commissioned by the Empire to help form pagan christianity (i.e. the [un]‘holy roman empire’).  Anybody that cares about early Christianity can plainly see that Nicaea is the point at which the visible Church officially died. Eusubius is clearly a part of this satan worship, and if he is helping corruption, of course he is prone to say the things that are not good for the church. If you are so historically foolish that you approve of Eusubius this is a mistake that cannot be overlooked until it is corrected.  Satan worship is a fundamental problem from which no pure truth can be established until it is zealously repented of. There is no point in discussing science when you think the court clown is more authoritative than Einstein.

“At the opening of the Council of Nicća Eusebius occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor, and delivered the inaugural address which was "couched in a strain of thanksgiving to Almighty God on his, the emperor's behalf" (Vit. Const., III, 11; Sozomen, Church History I.19)”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

If someone approves of the spiritual content behind the council of Nicaea, then there is virtually no way that they will ever truly approve of the actual, original Apostolic Church, because it is absolutely contrary to everything that real Christianity has always stood and fought for! This is very easy to see if we will not be foolish and irrational.

OF COURSE Eusubius is going to approve of idolatry and rebellion against the Scriptures and the worship that is against truth. Eusubius is part of a total pagan corruption of the visible church. Pagans have always mixed with filth, practiced fornication (physical and or spiritual), promoted idolatry, and never preserved truth with any amount of integrity.

Even the Catholics report to us:

“The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side…”

But

“After some delay Eusebius subscribed to the uncompromising creed drawn up by the council, making no secret, in the letter which he wrote to his own Church, of the non-natural sense in which he accepted it.”

In other words: Eusebius very reluctantly accepted the anti-Arian Nicene Creed

And because of this, they say:

“After the dedication they restored Arius and his followers to communion.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

(Arius soon died in light of this)

We see that Eusubius was a pro-Arian, pro-Nicene (Roman Empire) heretic/ apostate in both senses. Even Catholics report these things to us.

Eusubius may indeed give some useful information which I would be willing to reference and use, but you cannot count on heretics to preserve the actual, true orthodox faith. The actual Apostolic Church opposed everything that Nicaea stood for, and this is the only cry we should listen to, especially whenever there is a conflict. We should not let the story of the early church be “reliably” and trustfully told to our hearts by her enemies who sought to undermine and destroy her.

---------------

After printing book, maybe I’ll add these back in:

Back to TOP

Here are the links that we talked about:

www.hebrewbibles.com/tanakh.html

www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

useful info, but bad church?:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm

Think:

Unger’s bible Dictionary

Record:

ISBE commentary

Paid:

Halley’s Bible Handbook

Jenson’s Survey of OT

Culture and customs:

Illustrated Manners and customs of the Bible times

Bible Atlases:

Oxford Bible Atless

Moody Atlas of Bible Lands

--

http://www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/FAQs.html#

http://www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/FAQs.html#Deuterocanonical

http://www.trueconnection.org/BibleStudies/Bibliography_and_Glossary.html

I need to cover:

Martin Luther

that is, it would be burned up under God’s scrutiny as in

On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/epistle-to-the-galatians/1/

>>

It is disturbing that apparently a significant portion of their revisions were based off of being involved with the “National Council of Churches” (an overtly pagan, polytheistic organization consisting of apostate churches)

>>

>>

TNIV violates gender

GNT

, since this would partly suggest that Alexandria (of all places) would have the most accurate texts, and the “Majority” of the rest of the world would have small corruptions in their Bible.

Since Alexandria and other places in Egypt have been notorious (especially during early church times, when most of the variations occurred) for housing and producing heretics, heretical writings, and alterations of the Bible, it seems more likely (as far as I can tell) that they also altered the Alexandrian Text types.

It is not surprising that most translations today use the Alexandrian Text types for their translations, in the name of foolish, modern, sometimes even secular, “Textual Criticism,” which is one of the worst and most degraded forms of de-educating philosophy today that is shamelessly called “scholarship,” which usually completely ignores all spiritual credibility, or lack thereof, of the people transmitting the text! Integrity often does not mean anything today in the World, for those researching or those researched, including most of what we call the church.

However, despite all of this, I am still researching, and I do not have a set preference between Byzantine/Majority or Textus Receptus, and if anyone has some actual, solid, truth-loving research that they would like me to consider, I would be interested to see it.

--

NLT

Got o main NLT

>>

This fad of lying about paraphrased Bible versions to gain acceptance has been primarily started by “NLT.”

>>

Some stylistic influences of The Living Bible remained in the first edition (1996), but these are less evident in the second edition (2004, 2007).

Following the success of The Living Bible (40 million copies sold over 30 years), a decision for revision was made that began in 1989

The Second Edition of the NLT (also called the NLTse) was released in 2004. It reflects a translation style that is slightly less dynamic than the first edition in many places, yet it still retains natural contemporary English.

Another minor revision was completed in 2007 with minor textual and footnote changes.

Extra

You can purchase this for yourself:

From the Publisher, E-Bay, or Amazon

Pages: 624 (or some say “600”)

From the PublisherRetail: $44.95”:

http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/635167.trade.html

E-Bay ~ $34 (30 + shipping):

http://catalog.ebay.com/Analytical-Lexicon-Septuagint-Bernard-Taylor-2010-Hardcover-Expanded-/77495774?LH_BIN=1&LH_IncludeSIF=1&_fifpts=1&_pcatid=4&_refkw=Bernard+Taylor+"Analytical+Lexicon+to+the+Septuagint"

or

Amazon $30 + shipping (not sure how much shipping costs):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565635167?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwhendri-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1565635167

Compare:

The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint: A Complete Parsing Guide  by Bernard Alwyn Taylor in Books 

LXX Research

---

Is there a Hebrew close to the LXX??

"the Hebrew MS at Qumran called 4QExod(a) gives 75 as the correct number--in agreement with the LXX"

These Dead Sea Scrolls show usage of LXX, Samaritan, and various proto-MT textual traditions. One of the standard TC works today is Emmanual Tov of Hebrew University [OT:TCHB]. Only 60% of the texts found there agree with the MT (OT:TCHB:115). That's leaves 40% that vary.

He points out that "Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts" [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195].

2. Philo. As an Alexandrian Jew, he even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets! (Life of Moses, II.38-40):

"But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.

"Philo (ca. 25 bc-ad 40) makes the translation an act of divine inspiration, and the translators prophets: although they worked separately they produced a single text that was literally identical throughout." [WTOT:51]

--

but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, (13) while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

Finally, the biblical texts found at Qumran indicate that the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts were not so great as had been previously thought.

"The use of the LXX in the anonymous Samaritan and in Eupolemus, together with the discovery of LXX fragments in Qumran and in the caves used in the Bar Kochba revolt, shows that the Greek translation of the Old Testament also came to be highly prized in Palestine from the second century BC to the second century AD--in contrast to the sharp criticism of later Rabbis."

--

I need to re read this quote:

Fortunately, we DO have indication of a plurality (and therefore, non-fixity) of text types in use in Palestine at the time. So Waltke (EBC, vol 1, "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament", pp. 214-215):

"As a result of this liberal tendency, three distinct recensions and one mixed text type emerged during this period (c. 400 B.C. to c. A.D. 70). The three text types already known from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the text preserved by the Masoretes--the textus receptus--were corroborated by the finds at Qumran. Here the Hebrew text lying behind the Greek translation, the Jewish text type adopted and adapted by the Samaritans for their sectarian purposes, and the textus receptus are all represented.

It is also interesting to note that Jesus, when quoting from the OT, also varies His textual-type. We noted earlier that the vast majority of His quotes agreed with BOTH the LXX and the MT, but there are cases where He uses something different than EITHER. And, in several of these twelve cases, His word choice seems to reflect the same underlying text as the targums. For example, His word choices are more in line with the Targum than with the MT or LXX in Mark 4.12; 4.24; Matt 7.2 [Chilton, JSOTGP1:25-26; he notes that he has identified elsewhere 15 such passages], and Matt 4.10 [France, JOT:240ff].

----

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

--

Caution: Brenton's translation is based on a rather outdated Greek text of the LXX. The standard LXX text is to be found in the Göttingen edition, and has yet to be translated.

-----

I need to find a better summary on Wesley

Compare:

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

lie about GNB:

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

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

dynamic equivalence heretic:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/october7/2.46.html

--

We would never equate “BoBo the Clown” with the credibility of Albert Einstein in teaching us Astrophysics, and neither should we equate the ecstatic sloppy whims of heretics with the diligence and integrity of Saints who actually cared about truth when it comes to determining the facts about the Bible.

You should look at heretics in history to learn about the various progressions of Satanism, and how you might avoid it, but you ought to look at real Christians to learn about the overall progression of truth among mankind.

--

(which I understand to be a “critical edition” which tries to compare the different versions of the LXX, and use the reading deemed most original).

--

(So naturally, “NLT” does not even do Mat 4:4 justice)

--

but it is represented as

when it is compiled for e-Sword, even though

Whenever I quote it, I often replace the words “The Complete Apostles’ Bible,” with “CAB” for brevity sake (and because “AB” does not look like an abbreviation for a Bible translation).

--

CAB is not actually “complete” in the sense of the Bible that the Apostles used, since it does not contain the Apocrypha as Brenton accurately included in his Septuagint translation. But I think it is called “complete” here, because it combines Paul Esposito’s update to Brenton’s Septuagint translation (“The Apostles' Bible”) with his translation of the New Testament (EMTV).

--

NRSV

I skimmed over this link:

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

It looks like there are some strange tendencies with some translation methods, especially with Gender-erasing methods of mistranslating, but I don’t know if they are off in other ways as well.

--

Word Study:

Cessational: G4394 G4396 or not Cessational: G5486

--

I have not yet been able to determine exactly which individual is most directly responsible for the spiritual problems promoted within this work (as described above),

--

usually indicates an explanation of what is just said. When I use an “–” in this way, it will usually be the equivalent of saying, “that is.”

John and his brother Charles Wesley, lead the way in forming a movement which later morphed into what we now know as Methodism. Though John Wesley was mostly hard-core in preaching repentance from sin and actual obedience to the Bible, most Methodists today have collapsed into a mostly liberal anti-Bible denomination, such as most of the United Methodist church (UMC). One United Methodist pastor in Texas told me that if John Wesley could see what is going on today in the Methodist church, he would “be on a constant rotisserie” turning over in his grave. So I would say most Methodists are as most of the American church:

Pro-American church, anti-Bible

Pro-Man, anti-God

So:

- Wesley does not actually represent most Methodist churches.

- Sometimes referring to his notes are helpful, especially when getting an idea of what the original Methodists were like.

    I do not need some fool in a lab coat to tell me I came from an ape! How much worse if these crimes are done against the Scriptures in the church? But in every case… , whether that be the peer-review and consensus of prejudiced special-interest groups and their liberal, worldly agenda, or the theology of those who died in cemetery and wish to take us with them to their grave of compromised, modern christianity.

Course summary

(1) Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations

LXX

MT

DSS

DSS Bible

HOT

GNT

HNT

Vulgate

(2) Bible Translations and Versions

KJV

KJVA

KJV-1611

KJVCNT

KJ2000

NKJV

NIV, TNIV, NIrV

ESV

HCSB

EMTV

CAB

DRB

Darby

Brenton

Bishops

ASV

NASB/ NASV

ALT

YLT

WEB

MKJV

LITV

SRV

NAB

NETS

GLB

(3) Bible Paraphrases

TLB

NLT

MSG

GNB, TEV

CEV

gw

NCV