History of the Septuagint
Here is a little background on the Septuagint. This is from the Preface and Introduction to the Septuagint itself written by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton in 1851:
"The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, meaning "seventy," and frequently referred to by the roman numerals LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The name derives from the tradition that it was made by seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars at Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.).
"The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era.
"The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de nova [which means anew], but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.
"The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version [the Septuagint] (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus) [because Philo and Josephus quoted the Septuagint], gave place to a very contrary feeling when they [the Jews] found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decreed the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. [Previous to this, it was the Word of God as they were concerned. But as soon as the early church started using it against them and pointing out the depravity of Judaism, they tried to discredit the Septuagint]. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took; and as the Gentile Christians…fully embraced…its authority and inspiration, they necessarily regarded the denial on the part of the Jews of its accuracy, as little less than blasphemy, and as proof of their blindness."
The Jews upheld the Septuagint very strongly for the first 300 years as the Word of God, but when the Christians took a hold of it, then the Jews rejected it. Then the Jews started rewriting the Septuagint in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to suit their purposes. They were "Making the word of God of none effect through [their] tradition " (Mark 7:13).
The following is from the introduction of the book called "Grammar of the Septuagint Greek" by Connie Bearer and Stock, written in 1905:
"The work of Origen might enlighten the learned but it did not effect the unique position held in the church by the Septuagint ever since it was taken over by the Hellenistic Jews. We are familiar with the constant appeal made by the writers of the New Testament to quote scripture, an appeal couched in such words as "it is written" or "as the scripture saith." In the great majority of cases, the scripture thus appealed to is undoubtedly the Septuagint. Seldom, if ever, is it the Hebrew original. We have seen how, even before the Christian era, the Septuagint had acquired for itself the position of an inspired book. Some four centuries after that era, Augustine remarks that the Greek speaking Christians, for the most part, did not even know that there was any other Word of God than the Septuagint.
"So, when other nations became converted to Christianity and wanted the scriptures in their own languages, it was almost always the Septuagint which formed the basis of the translation. This was so in the case of the early Latin version, which was in use before the Vulgate, and it was so also in the case of the translations made in Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and other languages. The only exception to the rule is the first Syriac version, which was made direct from the Hebrew. This Syriac version, by the way, when translated into English, lines up harmoniously with the Septuagint when translated into English. When, at the close of the forth century, Jerome had recourse to the Hebrew original and revised it in the acceptable Latin text, the authority of the Septuagint stood in the way of the immediate acceptance of his work. The churches of Christ, said Augustine, do not think that anyone is to be preferred to the authority of so many men chosen out of the high priest Eliasar for the accomplishment of so great a work."
For those who favor the King James, the King James Bible, printed in 1810, called the "Potters Standard Edition", happens to talk about the Septuagint. Here is what that King James Bible said.
"The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which, if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about 270 years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it had attained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helped to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Besides, it establishes, beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and his inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech, hear the wonderful things of the Lord. All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written in the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God's inspired Word is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version."
The reason the Septuagint came about is because in Alexandria, Alexander the Great had come through and conquered many of those nations, and Greek became the predominant language. So they took the original Law, and translated it into Greek for those Jews that no longer spoke Hebrew, and also to convert many of the Greeks over to Judaism. They translated the original into the Greek at approximately 285 BC. Basically, you see many of the quotes from the New Testament and they're direct quotes from the Septuagint, you don't find the same terminology in the original Hebrew.
This is one of the reasons the Septuagint has been buried. A Maxim of Law states, "the law is sometimes hid but it never dies". Through my studies, I thought the Law was buried in 1861, but I'm finding out it goes much farther than that. And the Septuagint is part of the burying of that Law so we do not have it in out hands to use it against the powers that be, and they are the ones who have hidden it, so that they can retain control for commercial and power purposes. The maxims of Law have their roots in the Law of God, and are quoted verbatim from the Septuagint, but they're hiding both of them from the public. But when you use them against them, it stops them cold. Especially when you say, just like Jesus did, "It is written in the word of God", and then turning around on them and using a maxim and saying, "and is it not written in your law that…" and nailing them with their own public records and nailing them airtight with the words out of their own mouth. So they can't escape when you hit them with the Word of God and with their own law that comes from the Word of God, which proves that they know the Word of God is true.
Our first Proponent covered is from the Introduction to The Septuagint Bible, as translated into the English language by Charles Thomson in 1808, which gives us much insight into some previously unpublicized history and facts concerning the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint texts of the Old Testament. Some of its more important points read as follows:
"By the end of the first century of the Christian era—the first of several to be filled with fierce religious controversies—the official Hebrew biblical text had already become considerably altered from what it was in the third, or for that matter in the second or first centuries preceding the Christian era,—thus furnishing grist for the controversial mill, by enabling post-Christian Jewish proponents to answer any opponents who might quote from the Septuagint Bible text, by saying that it was "not the same" as the Hebrew. Of course it was not, for the Hebrew text had changed during the first century of the Christian era, as even a cursory examination of the older and later texts will prove. To cite one of the striking instances of such alterations, "the angels of God" in the ancient Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 32:8 became "the children of Israel" in the post-christian Hebrew version. As Swete after a survey of the evidence concludes:
"At some time between the age of the LXX and that of Aquila (ca. 125A.D.) a thorough revision of the Hebrew Bible must have taken place, probably under official direction; and the evidence seems to point to the Rabbinical school which had its center in Jamnia in the years that followed the fall of Jerusalem as the source from which this revision proceeded. Among the Rabbis of Jamnia were Eleazar, Joshua, and Akiba, the reputed teachers of Aquila." H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, op. cit., p.320
The changes that appeared in post-Christian times were literally followed thereafter, particularly after being formally crystallized by the 7th century Hebrew "traditionalists" (who were, however, often following a post-Christian tradition) called the Masoretes, from masorah, "tradition." It is little argument to say that the greatest Messianic prophecies remained unaltered in the 100A.D. Hebrew text which has come down to us as the present masoretic text; for to orthodox Jewry, especially in more ancient times, the Messiah was still to come, for whom those prophetic texts served very well. Hence, there existed no doctrinal need for such alteration in the least. Secondly, there was a definite, and often strongly provoked controversial need for some alterations, consequential or not, which would enable it to be said that the ancient Septuagint translation, so widely used in the Hellenistic world, was "not the same" as the "Hebrew" text.
The oldest Hebrew text in existence in the third century B.C. had been used by the early Septuagint translators; but it is unfortunate that in post-Christian times all Hebrew manuscripts containing the older text increasingly found their way into the genizah, the cemetery near every large ancient synagogue for abandoned scrolls of the Torah and other sacred writings. This fact modern discoveries in the old Cairo synagogue have further substantiated. The oldest literary evidence of the Bible—the Septuagint vellum manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the biblical papyrus scrolls—all tend to agree with each other more than with the present Hebrew text, which dates no earlier than 100 years after the Christian era had begun. Unfortunately, late text was relied upon by both Origen and St. Jerome as the "original" Hebrew in their work of redaction and translation, and the same dependence was used by Luther and the King James committee. Five out of the six columns in Origen's comparative Hexapla represent the 100A.D. text, and he even tried to adapt the sixth or Septuagint column to it in a natural desire to approximate what he believed to be the Hebrew original. Interestingly enough, in St. Jerome's version, as finally accepted in the Vulgate Bible, we still find the Septuagint version of the Psalms, as well as several books from the older version."
Our second Proponent covered is from Potter's Standard Bible, published in 1871, containing A Concise Treatise on the Evidences of the Genuineness, Authenticity, Inspiration, Preservation, and Value of the Word of God. This particular Bible was "Translated out of the Original Languages." In other words, its Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew. But in its opening Treatise, its author, Alfred Nevin, makes no mention of the Masoretes and their treatment of the original Hebrew texts. But he does make several very telling statements concerning the Septuagint and other translations of the Word of God, as follows:
"Allusion has been made to the Septuagint, by far the most famous and valuable of all the old versions of the entire Jewish Scriptures. From the time of Alexander the Great numerous colonies of Jews had settled in Egypt, and as they lost the use of the Hebrew tongue the necessity became urgent that the Scriptures should be rendered into Greek for their benefit. Accordingly, the Septuagint (i.e., seventy) was prepared by different authors, and it was so called because seventy, or rather seventy-two, elders of the Sanhedrim at Alexandria are believed to have examined and approved of the work. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about two hundred and eighty years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it obtained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the Apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helps to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time that the version was made. Besides, it establishes beyond all doubt the point that our Lord and His inspired Apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongues of all people, so that all men might in their own speech hear the wonderful things of the Lord.
The New Testament was originally written in Greek; and no sooner was the Gospel spread through the nations than it was found necessary to translate the inspired writings for each into its proper tongue. Some translations of the Old Testament, different from the Septuagint, were made into Greek from 128 to 200A.D. It is generally believed that the church at Antioch was favoured with a Syrian translation of the Bible as early as the year 100. The Ethiopians of Abbysinia have a version of the Bible, which they ascribe to Frumentius, of the fourth century. Chrysostom, who lived in the end of the fourth, and Theodoret, who lived in the middle of the fifth century, both inform us that they had the Syrian, Indian, Persian, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Scythian versions. The ancient Egyptians had the Scriptures translated into their language. The Georgians have a version in their ancient language. The most ancient German translation is supposed to have been made by Ulphilas, A.D. 360. The Old Testament of all these translations, except the Syrian, is taken from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew text."
"The English names of the Hebrew letters are written with much less uniformity than those of the Greek because there has been more dispute respecting their powers. This is directly contrary to what one would have expected. Since the Hebrew names are words originally significant of other things in the letters and the Greek are not. The original pronunciation of both languages is admitted to be lost." The Grammar of English Grammar, 9th Edition, 1865.
So, if anybody runs around and says you have to pronounce a particular name a certain way (Yahweh, Jehovah, etc), where did he find this out? You don't get pronunciation from reading a book, you get pronunciation from other people telling you, or hearing the sound of it being pronounced. For example, when you read the Septuagint, you have the Greek sitting in front of you, but you don't know how to pronounce it, and it really doesn't matter. What is important is the spirit behind the Word. When you look at the King James and see the sentence structure, syntax, and everything else all backwards, then you pick up the Septuagint, you know that somewhere along the line something was inverted or flipped over. Well, for what purpose?
When you look at 2 Timothy 2:15 and it tells you to be diligent, go ahead and look at the original Greek. It doesn't matter what the pronunciation is. What you're after is, "What does the word mean? What is the spirit behind the word? What is the power in the word?" To know the law is not to know the words, to know the law is the power IN the words. And that is the character of a sound mind. That was the character that Christ evidenced to us every step of his walk here with us. And you cannot possibly get a better rendition of what the Law is than what the Septuagint has written on its sheets of paper.
The King James' Old Testament is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew, not the original Hebrew. By the time the King James came around, the original Hebrew had been lost. What the Masorites did, between the 8th and 10th centuries, was they took the liberty within themselves to add vowel signs to the original Hebrew Alphabet. The original Hebrew alphabet had only 22 letters and had no vowels. The Hebrew alphabet is different from all other alphabets in this regard. For example, the English alphabet must take letters and put them into groups and call them words, but in Hebrew, the letters themselves are words.
"The names of the 22 letters in Hebrew are without dispute proper words. For they are not only significant of the letters of names but have, in general, if not in every instance, some other meaning in that language. Thus, the mysterious ciphers which the English reader meets with and wonders over as he reads the 119th Psalm may be resolved according to some of the Hebrew grammar as follows." The Grammar of English Grammar, 9th Edition, 1865.
Then this book lists the various letters. For example, the letter ALEPH. When the 119th Psalm opens up, the very first letter you run into is ALEPH. It means "an ox or a leader". It is the first letter of their alphabet, (and also means the number one). The original Hebrew alphabet is the only alphabet that has this characteristic peculiar to it; there are no other alphabets that have this peculiar characteristic. He lists the other 21 letters also, but it will get involved so I will just mention a few more.
BETH is the next letter, and it means "house" (and also means the number two). GIMEL, the third letter, refers to a camel (and also means the number three). It's obvious that we get our word "camel" from "GIMEL". So, you're a sojourner, your house is moving, and somebody is the leader, and that's Christ! DALETH, or "D" as we would call it, means "a door"! And who's the door? That would be Christ (John 10:7,9). DALETH also means the number four. This is all the subject matter the 119th Psalm concerns itself with, the original Hebrew alphabet. That's why it's the longest chapter in the entire scriptures!
Now, if I start taking liberties within myself and say, "Gee, there aren't any vowels in this alphabet. Why don't I start adding these little points in there and I'll re-create something here." What have I now done to a language that was perfect at its conception? We aren't supposed to be tampering with the Word of God. We are not to take away or add to God's Word (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Jeremiah 26:2, Revelation 22:18-19). But this is what the Masorites did.
This is the reason why the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament vary so much. because the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew text!
"...the writers of the New Testament seem often to differ from those of the Old, because they appear uniformly to quote from some copy of the Septuagint version; and most of their quotations agree verbally, and often even literally, with one or other of the copies of that version which subsist to the present day." Clarke's Commentaries, The New Testament, Volume 5A, page 48.
In this study, we will be comparing the Septuagint to the King James Bible. However, almost every bible in existence uses the Masoretic Hebrew for its Old Testament translation. Therefore, in this comparison, all bibles that use the Masoretic Hebrew texts are on an equal basis here. We use the King James Bible because it's one of the oldest and most read bibles.
When Jesus told the Pharisees, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39), he was not talking about the King James Version (and then we'll have to ask which KJV), or any version of the Bible, for bibles were not in existence at this time. The scriptures Jesus was referring to were the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and the Hebrew Old Testament books.
One of the scriptures that you hear all the time is 2 Timothy 1:7, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." But preachers never tell you what a sound mind is! I mean, is a sound mind going and getting certified by your psychiatrist that you're OK? What is a sound mind? You can search the King James for what a "sound mind" is, but you will never find it. You will find it in the Septuagint, however.
Proverbs 9:10 (KJV): "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
Proverbs 9:10 (LXX): "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the council of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind."
There is no comparison between the two, the KJV leaves out half of this verse. You can't believe how often this occurs between the Septuagint and the King James Version; they left so much out. You have to ask yourself, why would the translators not want people to know that to know the law is the character of a sound mind? Ignorance is probably one of the main controlling factors for those is power. And this is one of the reasons they founded the doctrine that we live under grace and not under the law so heavily, as if they were opposed.
Now that we know that if you don't have the fear of the Lord, and the council of the saints, and if you don't know the law, then you have an "unsound mind," let's go on and find out from the Septuagint how this comes about. How do we end up developing this unsound mind? Well, by listening to politicians, lawyers, teachers, the people in the media, etc.
Proverbs 26:22 in the KJV doesn't tell you much at all. It sounds soft. It's poetic and it leaves you hanging up in the air. It's like reading Alice in Wonderland or Shakespeare. Compare this same verse to the Septuagint:
Proverbs 26:22 (KJV): "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly."
Proverbs 26:22 (LXX): "The words of cunning knaves are soft; but they smite even to the inmost parts of the bowels."
If you look up the word "knave," which is not used much anymore, you will discover it means "a dishonest, deceitful person, tricky rascal, rogue." This is synonymous with evildoer. Whereas the term the KJV uses is "talebearer," and simply means "gossip," or someone who is a tattle tale, or someone who likes to read fairy tales. And how many pastors say that words are not important? Words can kill you, they get down right into your gut and they rob you of your physical life and your spiritual life.
Now, let's look at Proverbs 18:19-21. The King James and Septuagint are so diametrically opposed, that it's scary.
Proverbs 18:19 (KJV): "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."
Proverbs 18:19 (LXX): "A brother helped by a brother is as a strong and high city; and is as strong as a well-founded palace."
The King James' version just does not make much sense. It's supposed to be a brother "helped" by a brother, not a brother "offended" by a brother. This is the importance of fellowship and why brothers have to help brothers. Brothers helping brothers become a fortress! And it all has to do with words, as the next verse states.
Proverbs 18:20 (KJV): "A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled."
Proverbs 18:20 (LXX): "A man fills his belly with the fruits of his mouth; and he shall be satisfied with the fruits of his lips."
In this verse, the King James is basically saying that the more man talks, he's going to be filled. It sounds like a formula for a politician or a lawyer. Same repetition as the Pharisees in the marketplace. But the Septuagint says by the "fruits" of man's lips, not by the "increase" of his lips. It's WHAT he says, and not how MUCH he says, that's important.
The King James version of Proverbs 18:20 contradicts many other verses within the King James itself. Here are a few examples, Proverbs 10:19, "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise." Proverbs 13:3, "He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 14:23, "In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury." Proverbs 16:30, "...moving his lips he bringeth evil to pass." Proverbs 17:28, "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." Ecclesiastes 5:3, "...a fool's voice is known by multitude of words." Ecc.10:14, "A fool also is full of words."
When the King James Bible was first published in 1611, it included the Apocrypha. In the King James' own Apocrypha, in Ecclesiasticus, it states, "A man of many words shall be hated." Now, sometimes people are chided for using the Apocrypha, because it supposedly doesn't line up with the Word of God. But my first question is, "Well, what are you claiming to be the Word of God? The King James Bible itself?" Now, right here, in Proverbs 18:20, is an admission from the King James Bible. It is inconsistent with itself, and with the Apocrypha. And if it's inconsistent, it must not be the truth. Something had to be set aside, and guess what they set aside? The Apocrypha, because it had the appearance that it did not line up with the rest of what King James had put out there as the Word of God.
Proverbs 18:21 (KJV): "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."
Proverbs 18:21 (LXX): "Life and death are in the power of the tongue; and they that rule it shall eat the fruits thereof."
They will eat the fruits by ruling their own tongue, not by loving it. Those who love their tongue will use a multitude of words and increase their lips, which are condemned in scripture. However, by ruling our tongue, and being particular and careful about the words we are using, and knowing the meanings, knowing the definitions, we will bear the fruits of it. Also, this verse starts out "life and death", but the King James reverses it.
Here is another verse comparison which is opposed to each other. Either it's David's cup or God's, it can't be both.
Psalms 23:5 (KJV): "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup [David's cup] runneth over."
Psalms 22:5 (LXX): "Thou has prepared [passed tense] a table before me in presence of them that afflict me: thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil; and thy cup [God's cup] cheers me like the best wine."
Let's see what's going on in the financial realm today. Here is an example of how the King James promotes the idea to give your hard earned money to some man-made Church:
Proverbs 3:9 (KJV): "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:"
Proverbs 3:9 (LXX): "Honour the Lord with thy just labours, and give him the first of thy fruits of righteousness.
You see, you don't honor God with the "substance" of you "increase" (money), you honor God through your godly "labours" and your "righteousness." The problem is that the people who are out there doing the robbing certainly aren't going to want to hear it, but even the people who are being robbed don't even like to hear these truths.
Isaiah 3:12-13 (KJV): "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."
Isaiah 3:12-13 (LXX): "O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you: O my people, they that pronounce you blessed lead you astray, and pervert the path of your feet."
It is not "children" and "women" who are the oppressors, as the King James would have you believe, it is "extractors" and "extortioners" who are the oppressors. Also notice how the King James deletes the fact that "they who pronounce you blessed", or, in other words, hypocritical religious leaders, lead you astray and pervert you. Why would the King James hide this fact?
The above verse from the Septuagint sounds exactly like America today. What is an "extractor"? Extraction means, "the act or process of extracting, compulsion to give or furnish, a levying by force, a driving to compliance as the extraction of tribute or of obedience, hence extortion." And to extract means, "to rest as a fee or reward when none is due." And this is what is going on in the country today by the whole corporate structure. If you look at the Internal Revenue Code at section 61, it will tell you that the tax is "imposed". Go to any dictionary, and imposed means, "To force (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on another or others without right or invitation; obtrude."
So you are without excuse when somebody, like the IRS, is telling you, "Here, I'm doing this without rights. Are you going to buy into it? I know I don't have the right to do it, I know I'm acting unlawfully. Do you want to partake of my evil…my sin? Do you want me to be a parasite to get along in my life, regardless of whatever kind of life you might have?"
Everything that the natural man has done, he has made admissions every step of the way that he has gone. There's been no such thing as a conspiracy, or of doing things in secret. All these things are already written down. But are you diligently seeking? Do you know what it is that you read when you read? Do you know what's being said to you? Do you know the words that are said to you? Do you know what they mean and how they are being used? Do you understand your own grammar? Do you understand syntax? Do you understand sentence structure? This is what's required of being diligent.
Ecclesiasticus 21:8 (LXX - Apocrypha): "He that buildeth his house with other men's money is like one that gathereth himself stones for the tomb of his burial."
This is where the term mortgage comes from. Mort means "death" (as in mortuary or mortality), and gage means "pledge". Mort-gage means a "dead pledge." In Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856, Dead-Pledge is defined as "a mortgage of lands or goods." A mortgage means you're going to give the banks your money and they're not going to give you anything back!
Nehemiah 5:3-5, "…We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses…We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards…and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards."
Leviticus 25:23, "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."
Nobody, at law, owns any land. So where do all these mortgage companies, banks, and the government get "titles" to God's property? They made it up! So, you can see why the powers that be, that were financing the various versions of the bible, had a vested monetary interest, and that's why they changed all these truths. And all these truths are readily available in the Septuagint.
Comparing New Testament quotations of Old Testament verses
The following verses will show how Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint. Anyone can easily verify the divergent readings between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts by merely using a reference Bible that will identify the sources of quotations used by the New Testament writers. For example, 1 Peter 4:18 is quoting from Proverbs 11:31 in the Old Testament. The only problem is that 1 Peter 4:18, although faithful to Proverbs 11:31 in the Septuagint version, is barely recognizable in the Masoretic text - the King James version.
1) 1 Peter 4:18 is barely recognizable in the King James version.
1 Peter 4:18 "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Proverbs 11:31 (LXX): "If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Proverbs 11:31 (KJV): "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner."
2) James quotes from Proverbs 3:34 here. Although it is identical to the Septuagint, it is barely recognizable in the King James.
James 4:6 "…God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
Proverbs 3:34 (LXX): "The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble."
Proverbs 3:34 (KJV): "Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly."
3) Again, this verse in Isaiah, which Jesus quoted from in Matthew, is not recognizable in the King James Bible!
Matthew 15:9 (KJV): "But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men."
Isaiah 29:13 (LXX): "…but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
Isaiah 29:13 (KJV): "…and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them..."
4) Notice Jesus' words in Matthew 21:16 when he quoted from Psalm 8:2. They do not come from the King James Bible, but from the Septuagint.
Matthew 21:16, "…Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"
Psalms 8:2 (LXX): "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise…"
Psalms 8:2 (KJV): "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength…"
5) Revelation 2:26 says, "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:" Will those who overcome rule the heathen, or will they hurt and do evil to them? The next verse quotes Psalms 2:9:
Revelation 2:27 "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron…"
Psalms 2:9 (LXX): "Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron…"
Psalms 2:9 (KJV): "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron…"
6) Matthew 21:42 says, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures..." Well, the answer is they sure did not read this passage from the Masoretic Hebrew scriptures, but they did read it from the Septuagint!
Matthew 21:42: "...The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:
Psalms 117:22 (LXX): "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner."
Psalms 118:22 (KJV): "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."
Now, is the King James the best evidence? Which one has the better testimony? Even the King James Bible itself is quoting the Septuagint, which the King James admits is a superior and better source. So, the above verses are witnesses, and there are four witnesses that state the Septuagint is a better evidence. The King James Bible itself is one witness, Jesus is another, Peter is another, and James is another. But since all the writers of the New testament quoted from the Septuagint, they are all witnesses!
King James is quoting from the Septuagint, a superior authority than his own. If you were to put the King James on trial, and you look up the Rules concerning Best Evidence in a court of law, the Rule of Best Evidence states, "A writing is the best evidence of its own content, and must be introduced, unless it has been lost or destroyed."
Well, the Septuagint has not been lost or destroyed, it's still here. And even the King is quoting from it! But he's not bringing forth the original writing in his own bible. So, the King James Bible is obviously not the best evidence. Its Old Testament is from some other copy of some other rendition, which is the Masoretic Hebrew, which came about between the 8th and 10th century after Christ. So the King James Bible is not even translated from the original Hebrew! But the Septuagint WAS translated from the original Hebrew 285 years before Christ. So, here we have established that the King James Bible is inferior, or secondary, or even hearsay evidence if you will. We are using the King James against them, and they can't deny that.
The Rule concerning Best Evidence also states, "As understood and applied in present day practice, the best evidence rule requires that whenever a party seeks to prove the contents of a writing, he must produce the original writing, or satisfactory account for its absence." Well, we can satisfactory account for the absence of the original Hebrew because we can't find it! It's lost. What is alleged to be Hebrew today, or is spoken as Hebrew, is the Masoretic Hebrew. Nobody really knows what the original Hebrew sounded like, or how it was pronounced.
So, what is the Best Evidence Rule attempting to present? "The best evidence rule is to prevent fraud." Well, if King James is quoting from the Septuagint, and Christ Jesus is quoting from the Septuagint, and the apostles are quoting from the Septuagint, King James is admitting to himself, and admitting to the world, that his bible is fraudulent! It's not the best evidence. We're not trying to impugn anything, we're just seeing what the Rules of Evidence would say about the King James Bible, and how the law declares it. We're not saying that God can't use the King James Bible, because he certainly can and does. I know he did with me because I grew spiritually on the King James. The King James is a stepping stone, but it's not the place to stay. We move on. It's the watered down version, it's the milk of the Word, and the Septuagint is the meat of God's Word.
Milk versus Meat
Hebrews 5:12-14 - Hebrews 6:1-3, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment [because we already know those things]. And this will we do, if God permit."
But you can go into one of these 501(c)(3) corporate religious businesses, and they've been preaching the same message, and saying the same thing repetitiously, for years, over and over again. It's just a constant diet of watered down milk. All it's going to produce is sophistry, which means "one who teaches ethical or moral science for payment." And from the pulpit today, that's all you're getting. In all the Church businesses, they always get their money up front, and then you hear the sophistry afterwards. What man would by a piece of land, sight unseen? Or buy anything before seeing it or hearing it? So why would you put money in the plate before you even hear what this sophist has to say, or whether it's even close to the Word of God?
If you flip on a religious TV station, for example, you watch and listen to these guys expound on their theories of who God is, and all you're getting is the milk. You can't survive on milk. And if all you get is milk, you end up dying in the end, spiritually. This is why we fail to see the fruits of the spirit being manifest in people today; the love, the peace, the joy, and the other fruits of the spirit. If you look around the world today, there is no joy. The abundant life is gone. And it's all due to the fact that they haven't matured in the Word, they've stayed on the milk and have not eaten more solid food. If you keep someone on milk forever, they'll wind up dying on you. You have to move on to more solid food.
The same thing happens when you read from the King James Bible for instance. If you don't move on from its milk, and get into a more meatier substance (i.e. Brenton's Edition of The Septuagint, and George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek English New Testament), you will end up dying, your bones start to get soft, your muscles start to wither, you're no longer exercising.
A soldier is always out there exercising so that he may be ready and useful for battle. But if you're going to use inferior tools, or if you're not going to be fully exercised, or you're only going to go through the motions but never really do them, then all you're ending up with is a fat, lazy military who, when the order is given to march, they sit back and say, "Well, according to my interpretation of this passage of the order, it doesn't mean this", and so the order is never executed. Then another order comes down. Now you've got a second order when the first order hasn't even been executed yet, because we've re-interpreted the first order. When the second order comes down, we re-interpret that, and that one doesn't get executed.
There's a lot of people out there hungry for the meat of the Word. The meat of the Word is what we saw executed in Christ. When we look at the word "Proverb" for example, there's a couple of places in the New Testament where the Greek word there is translated to a "parable." There's some textual critics that say this word should have been translated 'proverb." Well, if you break down the word proverb, the word pro means "either for or against", and verb is an action word. So 'proverb' is something to be done, or action. So, when Christ was speaking in parables, he was talking in a way that showed you how to execute whatever principle he was expounding in the proverb, which the Pharisees could not understand because they were not into execution, they were into philosophizing. The same word that's used as "proverb" in the Old Testament is the same word that's used in the New Testament in the Greek. And the Proverbs in the Old Testament, when you read them, they're not something that are static, they actually lift off the page and are actually performed and done. We may not know we are doing them at the time, consciously, because God has already written us a copy of the Law on our heart. And when you're executing a copy of the Law that he's written on your heart, you're not doing it with an intellectual interference.
When you read the Greek of the Septuagint, and then you go to the New Testament and read the Greek of the same thing that Christ was expounding, you'll also see the same words used . But you can't find those same words if you're reading an English only Bible, because the Old Testament words are from the Masoretic Hebrew which don't necessarily correspond to what was translated to the English from the Greek in the New Testament.
Here is our Lord confirming what he wrote 285 years before he came! Why then would I need something that is a translation from another source that does not have God's seal of approval? There is not one place in the Masoretic Hebrew where they can show that God ever authorized them to change the original language by adding vowel points to it. So, if there's no authority for doing such an act, then where's the source, cause, and origin of that act? It's in the heart of the man that authorized it, and out of the abundance of the heart does the mouth speaketh (Matthew 12:34, Luke 6:45). So, if the language has been corrupted without authority, then we know that whoever did it had an evil heart. Because the authority did not come from Christ himself.
Even in there own law, man admits that they know the truth, and one of their maxims of law states, "He who does not speak the truth is a betrayer of the truth." So, if people are doctoring up the truth intentionally, or they are not really speaking the truth, they are actually betraying the truth! They are traitors themselves. And they can't say, "I'm ignorant" because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Women and Wives
The Septuagint is replete with all kinds of wonderful information on women, both good and bad, and how to differentiate between the two. It answers the question of romance and involvement completely, and what to avoid, for both the women and the men that are out their looking for a husband or wife. With the introduction of television and soap operas, we are in about a third generation of women who have been raised on soap opera values, which are the commercial values of the world. And the main job of the merchant is to get us to prostitute ourselves to turn away from what our true calling is in God, and sell ourselves out for the material things of the world.
Today, we sit in some homes and see people treating and acting like these situation comedies, cutting each other down. It's lazy comedy, because they can't really do anything funny, so they have to use shock and embarrassment to make them laugh because they don't know what humor really is. Then people start to imitate this and it destroys the family. And their main target were the wives, mothers, and women because the women are in the home and had the access to the television. And the merchants know that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Men are supposed to be protecting the women with God's Law.
1) Let's compare Proverbs 5:3-6.
Proverbs 5:3-6 (KJV): "For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them."
This King James verse is pretty muddy. You can get a little bit out of it but not a whole lot. Here's the Septuagint reading:
Proverbs 5:3-6 (LXX): "Give no heed to a worthless woman; for honey drops from the lips of a harlot, who for a season pleases thy palate: but afterwards thou wilt find her more bitter than gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword. For the feet of folly lead those who deal with her down to the grave with death; and her steps are not established. For she goes not upon the paths of life; but her ways are slippery, and not easily known."
Now that doesn't leave too much left to the imagination and speculation, does it? This verse doesn't apply to just women in gender, you can also apply this to the philosopher, or to the feminized man, they do exactly the same thing. So, the sword cuts both ways. The word 'woman' is used here because these are the attributes that a woman of ill-repute exhibits, but these are the same attributes that a feminized man, who is also a man of ill-repute, also exhibits. This applies to everyone who sells themselves out from their calling and their purpose that the Lord has called them towards, which is only revealed in the Word of God; not on a soap opera, not on a sitcom, not on anything that comes out of the media.
2) Now you know why Paul would not suffer a woman to speak in a lawful assembly; he wasn't referring only to sex, he was referring to the effeminate man. Men with feminine characteristics. And this is why the Church has been feminized:
Proverbs 19:15 (KJV): "Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger."
Proverbs 19:15 (LXX): "Cowardice possesses the effeminate man; and the soul of the sluggard shall hunger."
You know, our lives are not reality, they're not real, we've been living according to a script. If you're relying on somebody else's script, what does that tell you about what kind of spirit you have in your heart? It's dead. We live according to the image that we hold in our mind, and we need to have the image we hold in our mind conformed to that of the only begotten Son of God. Otherwise, we're following the script of the world and the images that come over the television.
There is not necessarily a conspiracy here by the King James translators. Since I came to the knowledge that the majority text is the Word of God, I wanted to find out more about the King James and the history of it. I bought into the "King James Only" thing for many, many years. I was reading the King James and it says to "study", instead of to "be diligent" (2 Timothy 2:15). Once I realized that this verse says to "be diligent", I decided to be diligent and look at the King James a little closer, and look at its history. And the King James isn't really a translation, it is a compilation of all the previous bibles of the reformation, such as the Coverdale, the Tyndale, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. King James put their phrasing into his Bible.
What should somebody do when they find out that what they've believed is a lie? A maxim of Law states, "It is better to retrace your steps than to proceed wrongly."
There's a big difference between a translation and a transcription. A transcription is done word for word as close to the original as possible. And as soon as you start translating, you are interjection your own knowledge from the tree of good and evil. You're just interjecting your own opinions to translate whatever it is you're reading. That's why there's so much confusion when people start talking about, "Well what translation do I get?" Well, really you don't want any of them, what you really want is the transcription. A word for word transcription into the English language.
To give an example, When you read the Psalms in the King James Version, everything that David was saying was in the future tense, "God will do this." But in the Septuagint, it is in the passed tense. God had already done it, he had already accomplished it in David's life. The blessings of God, David had them all, and he knew it as long as he was obedient. He had everything that God had promised. And we are the same way, as long as we are obedient to God, we will receive the blessings of God. There's no futuristic tense there, we have all of these blessings, they are ours. But we have to be obedient, walking in faith, which means walking in true allegiance to God and not to man.
To give you an example, when you go to the lineage's in Matthew and Luke that describe the earthly genealogy of Christ, the King James says, "Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Judas," etc. When you go to the way the Greek mind puts things down on paper, it reads, "Abraham generated the Isaac, the Isaac generated the Jacob, the Jacob generated the Judas." In other words, the name that you carry is an attribute of who you are.
From this point on, we see how names play a big role, and how, if you're generated by "The State," how the State has jurisdiction over you. When you give the recognition (i.e. you have the respect of persons), you stray away from God's Law. This is why Jesus is called either "Jesus the Christ," or "Christ Jesus," and never as "Jesus Christ".
God reveals to us everything we need to know in His Words, and especially in the Septuagint, and how important it is for us to know that we are never supposed to respect a man's person. And especially our own, because to respect means to acknowledge or to honor that. And as soon as we acknowledge that we are "persons" we step out of the jurisdiction of God, we step out of His Kingdom, we have acknowledged something that's false and not of Him, and we are saying to the fictional powers that be, "Yea, I'm in your sandbox now and do with me what you want to because I'm a person. Have at me."
Proverbs 22:26 is only one of the many places that God brings this up. It doesn't do this as clearly in the King James, but it does in the Septuagint. But even in the King James, they didn't completely conceal it, but they didn't give you the key word there, but they do in other places in the King James, but they use it opaquely.
Proverbs 22:26 (KJV): "Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts."
Proverbs 22:26 (LXX): "Become not surety from respect of a man's person."
In other words, do not become a surety from even acknowledging the man's person. You're the man, and their own maxim of law reads, "every person is a man, but not every man is a person." So they know this, that all statutory fictions only have jurisdiction over the person. And the only way they can establish any kind of authority over you , to penalize you, is you have to consent and acknowledge to being that person first!
Now, the maxim of law states, "A slave is not a person." "A slave, and everything a slave has, belongs to his master." So, if you are a slave, or a servant of Christ, you don't fit that description of being the person described in their statutes. You're not there, you're not found. But you have to bring forth the best evidence at every turn. How do we know you're not a slave? By their fruits you will know them. 1 John 4:5, "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world," so you don't speak of the world, you don't know the terms of the world, you don't have respect of persons, you don't fit the profile of being a person. This all has to be done in truth, and not a self serving declaration. "I am who I say I am." Oh really? Does the spirit of God bear witness of you? Or does the spirit of God bear witness against you? The Truth is, "I am who God says I am." That's where the truth is, because the Spirit is the truth, not the words that came out of your mouth.
So if you're speaking of yourself and you make a self serving declaration, and the spirit of God does not bear witness of the words that came out of your mouth, you're found out to be a liar, and therefore the perfection of God is not there.
John 7:18: "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
James 2:9, "But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."
Proverbs 24:23 (KJV): "These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."
Proverbs 24:23 (LXX): "And this thing I say to you that are wise for you to learn: it is not good to give respect of persons in judgment."
Job 32:22 (KJV): "For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away."
Job 32:22 (LXX): "For I know not how to respect persons: and if otherwise, even the moths would eat me."
So Job knew the importance of not designating yourself as a creation of man, and negating the fact that you are a son of God, not a creation of the State. So there are millions of people running around that do not know who they are or what they are.
It's the spirit in the words that are written in God's Word that are life. The words themselves don't have any life as far as them sitting on the paper. That's why it was given to you in your heart that you might not sin against Him and that you might do His Will. The Septuagint speaks directly to your heart, simply.
Other Contradictory verses in the King James Bible
- The scripture specifically mentions seven nations that the Israelites were forbidden to enter into covenants with. All seven are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. But for some reason, when these "seven" nations are repeated in other parts of scripture, the KJV deletes one of them, the Girgashites, whereas the Septuagint retains all seven of them (Exodus 23:23; 34:11). Likewise, Genesis 15:21 lists five nations, but the King James deletes one of them, the "Evites."
- In Acts 7:14, Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the King James falsely state "70." Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is why "70" is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.
- In the King James bible, 2 Samuel 24:13 says there would be seven years of famine, but 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years of famine. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read three years of famine.
- In the King James bible, 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old. The Septuagint accurately reads 22 years old for both.
- In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 5:16 says there were 3300 overseers, and 2 Chronicles 2:18, speaking of the same thing, says there were 3600 overseers. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 3600 (3600 is also confirmed in III Kings, chapter 3, first paragraph, in the Septuagint).
- Speaking of the same exact event, the King James Bible says there were 700 horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4, but 7000 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 7,000 horsemen.
- In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:26 says there were 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4:5 says there were 3000 baths. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 7:26 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.
- In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 9:23 says there were 550 people that bear rule, and 2 Chronicles 8:10 says that 250 people bear rule. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 9:23 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.
- In Joshua 10:15, where this verse is omitted in the Septuagint, it can easily be seen that this verse, in the King James, does not belong and is out of place. Because the Israelitish army did not return to the camp at Gilgal till after the hanging of the five kings and the destruction of their cities. This is sufficiently evident from the subsequent parts of this chapter. When all this business was done, and not before, is when they returned to the camp to Gilgal (see Joshua 10:43). This verse is omitted by the Septuagint; and it does not appear to have existed in the ancient hexaplar versions; it stands in its proper place in Joshua 10:43, and is not only useless in Joshua 10:15, but appears to be an encumbrance to the narrative. Should it be considered as genuine and in its proper place, I would propose that the camp at Gilgal should be read instead the camp at Makkedah, for we find from Joshua 10:21 that Joshua had a temporary camp there, after which we may suppose that Joshua having secured the cave, sent some detachments to scour the country and cut off all the remaining straggling Canaanites; when this was done they also returned to the camp at Makkedah, as is related Jos 10:21, and when the business was completed they struck the camp at Makkedah, and all returned to their fortified camp at Gilgal (Joshua 10:43).
Actual Fragments of the Septuagint
The following are pictures of actual fragments of the Septuagint published and now at the museum of Cairo, W.G WADELL, 1944, in Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 45 pages 158-161. They show the tetragramaton untranslated in Hebrew square characters.
The word in the circle is YHWH. This is not Greek, it is Hebrew and is the Holy name of God. If you notice the text is in Greek, only the holy name was left untranslated. This name is also referred as the tetragramaton.
These are fragments of the book of Deutrononomy of a septuagint found in Egypt, possible dating around 100 B.C. the great discovery was that early copies of the septuagint did not substitute the name of God (YHWH) with GOD or LORD, but left it untranslated in Hebrew.
|Home||Greetings||Who We Are||Helpful Info||Rest Room||Search||Contact Us|