Validity of Scripture, the Apocrypha versus the King James

[Matthias]

Overall, the piece is the writer's opinion, but the facts and genealogies he lays down are not opinion.

If you can spare the time to read these forum threads, you certainly have time to read the piece.

I’m not interested enough (yet) to spend the time required to read the piece.

I was raised KJVO. When I read Shakespeare in high school I wasn’t able to understand him very well; not an uncommon condition.

I should have been able to. The language style is the same. There is a reason why the language in one was understandable and the same language in another wasn’t. That’s what I’m driving at.

 

[doctrox]

I’m not interested enough to spend the time required to read the piece.

Yeah, we get that. So why should I be interested in pursuing this with someone who's less interested in discovering the truth and rather more interested in pushing an agenda?

There is a reason why the language in one was understandable and the same language in another wasn’t. That's what I'm driving at.

The reason why is that you're looking in the wrong place for the right answer.

Here we see the problem with man's textual criticism laid out before us. That sleazy endeavor is why many of you would push for 'bigger and better bibles,' copyrighted or otherwise, that appear "pleasant to the eyes" and "to make one wise," that come with the highest recommendations of the 'scholars' who offer periodic "updates" of their findings to their yes-men and other subscribers.

People, you've been sold a bill of goods by the world's best merchandiser, Satan himself.

Rather, If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him (James 1:5).

 

[Matthias]

Yeah, we get that.

Do you also get that I suggested that I could become interested?

So why should I be interested in pursuing this with someone who's less interested in discovering the truth and rather more interested in pushing an agenda?

In the first place, I didn’t come to you, you came to me. If you don’t have any interest in speaking with me, for any reason, then you shouldn’t.

In the second place, you’ve mischaracterized me. I’m interested in discovering the truth and I‘m not pushing an agenda.

The reason why is that you're looking in the wrong place for the right answer.

I’m looking at Elizabethan language and looking to answer the question of why people can understand it in one setting but struggle to understand it in a different setting, even when the subject matter is related.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him (Jamesd 1:5).

 

[doctrox]

I’m looking at Elizabethan language and looking to answer the question of why people can understand it in one setting but struggle to understand it in a different setting, even when the subject matter is related.

I'm saying that you should not be using the pseudepigraphic Hamlet in the attempt to bolster your argument.

 

[Matthias]

I'm saying that you should not be using Hamlet in the attempt to bolster your case.

I selected Hamlet for the subject matter and for the style of English.

Select any piece of your choosing which uses Elizabethan English. The question would remain the same: Why would I struggle understanding the piece of your choosing but not struggle with understanding the Elizabethan language used in KJV?

The reading comprehension level should be the same for me, but it isn’t.

 

[doctrox]

Select any piece of your choosing which uses Elizabethan English. The question would remain the same: Why would I struggle understanding the piece of your choosing but not struggle with understanding the Elizabethan language used in KJV?

Because you've mischaracterized the issue. The issue was never about "Elizabethan" language being "bad"; it's not even about "Elizabethan language" whatsoever.

The reason you, or anyone, "would struggle with understanding...the Elizabethan language used in KJV" is because you sought men for understanding rather than God.

 

[Matthias]

In Malawi, I gifted a KJV to a woman who had never read Shakespeare. If I had gifted her a copy of Shakespeare instead, would she have understood what she was reading? She could speak a little English but she wasn’t fluent in the language. Her native language was Chichewa. English was her second language.

I put Elizabethan English in her hands, and she was grateful for it. She had trouble with modern English. How well would she do with the Elizabethan English used in KJV? To this day, I can’t answer that question. We still felt it was a better option than the NIV.

She wasn’t a Christian but she was interested in learning about Christianity.

 

[Pierac]

You have way more issues to worry about....

 

[Pierac]

AGE OF LEVITICAL SERVICE

Numbers 4: 3, 23, 30, 35, 39	Numbers 8: 24
the ages of the Levites qualified to minister in the temple was between ages 30 to 50	the ages are between 25 and 50

•In the Septuagint however, both chapters say between 25 and 50 each time. There is no discrepancy.

2 Sam 8:4 (1,700 horsemen)	1 Chr 18:4 (7,000 horsemen)
4 And David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots.	4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots

LXX: agrees with both. It reads: 7,000 in both passages

2 Sam 8:4 - 4 And David took a thousand of his chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all his chariot horses, and he reserved to himself a hundred chariots.

1 Chr 18:4 4 And David took of them a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand infantry: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but there were reserved of them a hundred chariots.


You have no idea!!

 

[doctrox]

If I had gifted her a copy of Shakespeare instead, would she have understood what she was reading?

Regardless of the perceived worldly benefit to the flesh of ease of reading Shakespeare, she still would not have understood KJV unless she had first asked God for that understanding.

This is because the Bible is a sealed book. God hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (Mat. 11:25)

How well would she do with the Elizabethan English used in KJV? To this day, I can’t answer that question.

I can answer that question. I have three home birthed and home schooled daughters, raised on the KJB. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (Pro. 22:6).

We still felt it was a better option than the NIV.

The NIV is demonstrably provably satanic.

the Septuagint

LOL @ the Septuagint.

 

[Matthias]

Because you've mischaracterized the issue. The issue was never about "Elizabethan" language being "bad";

I’ve not said that Elizabethan language is bad. It isn’t bad. It‘s difficult for people who don’t use it regularly to understand it. Modern high school students have struggled mightily to understand Shakespeare. The oddity is that I used KJV regularly. I was KJVO. Elizabethan language shouldn’t have caused me any difficulty. When it came to the Bible, it didn’t. When it came to Shakespeare, it did.

it's not even about "Elizabethan language" whatsoever.

You’re mistaken. It is.

The reason you, or anyone, "would struggle with understanding...the Elizabethan language used in KJV" is because you sought men for understanding rather than God.

I didn’t struggle with understanding the Elizabethan language used in KJV. It was understanding the Elizabethan language used in Shakespeare that I struggled to understand.

What I’m trying to tell you is that I because I didn’t struggle understanding the Elizabethan language used in KJV I shouldn’t have struggled to understand the Elizabethan language used in Shakespeare, but I did. I’m looking for reasons to explain that.

 

[doctrox]

When it came to Shakespeare, it did [cause me difficulty].

It should, as it's a tome to humanism - certainly not spiritually healthy reading.

What I’m trying to tell you is that I because I didn’t struggle understanding the Elizabethan language used in KJV I shouldn’t have struggled to understand the Elizabethan language used in Shakespeare, but I did. I’m looking for reasons to explain that.

The KJB and Shakespeare are not equivalent. Even "the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8). So anyone can read anything of the world and come away with a more worldly understanding. But what child of God should seek any thing of the world for spiritual wisdom??? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Gal. 5:9).

God tells us man's inability to understand the bible has a number of causes, none of which is a limitation in his vocabulary. The bible is not difficult to understand - it is impossible - unless God's criteria are met. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
(Isa. 29:10-11).

 

[Matthias]

Regardless of the perceived worldly benefit to the flesh of ease of reading Shakespeare, she still would not have understood KJV unless she had first asked God for that understanding.

She wasn’t a Christian. She didn’t speak to God about anything. Putting a KJV in her hands gave her joy and me pleasure, but I question how much good it really accomplished. I had to leave a fee days later. I don’t know how her story has unfolded.

This is because the Bible is a sealed book. God hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (Mat. 11:25)

What would have happened if we had chosen the Chichewa language Bible to give her instead? She could have read the Bible in her native language (which she was fluent in) instead of in her second language (which she wasn’t fluent in). I have no idea how good the Chichewa language Bible. If you are KJVO then wouldn’t you say that a Chichewa language Bible would have been a poor choice?

I can answer that question. I have three home birthed and home schooled daughters, raised on the KJB. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (Pro. 22:6).

Doesn’t the Chichewa language translation say the same thing? I think it does, but I’m not certain. I know very little Chichewa and I’m certainly not fluent in it. My point: It isn’t necessary for a person to have a KJV.

The NIV is demonstrably provably satanic.

I don’t know if you’re KJVO or not. I was. I’m not any longer.

I don’t think NIV is satanic. I do think it is a poor translation.

Do you think all modern English language Bible translations are satanic? What about non-English Bible translations? Do hou think they are satanic?

LOL @ the Septuagint.

The apostles quoted from the Septuagint. Why are you laughing?

 

[Matthias]

It should, as it's a tome to humanism - certainly not spiritually healthy reading.

So Shakespeare, a Protestant, in your opinion, was anti-Christian.

The KJB and Shakespeare are not equivalent.

I haven’t said that they are equivalent. That thought never entered my mind. I did point out that the style of language is the same and that the particular selection I made addressed an issue that is dealt with in the KJV (and all other Bible translations).

Even "the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8). So anyone can read anything of the world and come away with a more worldly understanding.

I didn’t understand Shakespeare, which you assert is “of the world”.

But what child of God should seek any thing of the world for spiritual wisdom??? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Gal. 5:9).

God tells us man's inability to understand the bible has a number of causes, none of which is a limitation in his vocabulary. The bible is not difficult to understand - it is impossible - unless God's criteria are met.

 

[doctrox]

She wasn’t a Christian. She didn’t speak to God about anything. Putting a KJV in her hands gave her joy and me pleasure, but I question how much good it really accomplished. I had to leave a fee days later. I don’t know how her story has unfolded.

Yeah, that's how it goes. We only plant seeds i.e. deliver truth; God brings in the harvest (if any). Imagine the confusion if we were held responsible for bringing conviction to them, as well!

What would have happened if we had chosen the Chichewa language Bible to give her instead? She could have read the Bible in her native language (which she was fluent in) instead of in her second language (which she wasn’t fluent in). I have no idea how good the Chichewa language Bible.

God's pattern has always been the same: He gives the COMMON man the COMMON bible in the COMMON language of the day, to do one thing -- evangelize the world.

Doesn’t the Chichewa language translation say the same thing? I think it does, but I’m not certain. I know very little Chichewa and I’m certainly not fluent in it.

Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version. The King James Bible Society (527 Benjulyn Rd., Cantonment, Florida) keeps a list of good foreign Bibles and missionaries in agreement with the KJV. People looking around in their church think everyone uses an NIV or another new version. That may be true within the context of their limited vision, but when looking back at the history of the church around the world, you will see, for example, that those 64,000 missing words in the NIV have not been missing through the history of the church.

[So Shakespeare, a Protestant, in your opinion, was anti-Christian.

I said Shakespeare was an Intel project.

The KJB and Shakespeare are not equivalent. One is Truth, the other is fiction.

the particular selection I made addressed an issue that is dealt with in the KJV (and all other Bible translations).

The KJB and "all other Bible translations" do not equate with each other, so do not conflate them in your discussion.

I didn’t understand Shakespeare, which you assert is “of the world”.

Again, Shakespeare is mere fiction - vain imaginations of men (2 Cor.; Romans).

The apostles quoted from the Septuagint. Why are you laughing?

...because the Septuagint is a joke - another topic for another thread.

I'm out for awhile, but I shall return later. Thanks for the convo.

 

[Matthias]

I was able to understand Elizabethan language (non-fiction, the Bible) but had difficulty understanding Elizabethan language (fiction, Shakespeare) because Elizabethan language (fiction, Shakespeare) is of the world and Elizabethan language (non-fiction, Bible) is not of the world?

I’m not sure that’s the explanation but I think he may have slipped a compliment in on me there.

 

[doctrox]

I was able to understand Elizabethan language (non-fiction, the Bible) but had difficulty understanding Elizabethan language (fiction, Shakespeare) because Elizabethan language (fiction, Shakespeare) is of the world and Elizabethan language (non-fiction, Bible) is not of the world?

Shakespeare is easy enough, written to pagans, for pagans - no mystery there. Rather, it's all about where the ability to understand spiritual things comes from. It's a fool's game to pigeon hole or otherwise denigrate "Elizabethan language" while remaining ignorant of spiritual realities.

 

[Matthias]

Shakespeare is easy enough, written to pagans, for pagans - no mystery there.

Protestants writing to pagans, for pagans without it including Christian teaching strikes me as a money grab. I don’t think that’s what Shakespeare did. (But hey! I’ve already said that I had - and still sometimes have - trouble understanding him.)

Rather, it's all about where the ability to understand spiritual things comes from. It's a fool's game to pigeon hole or otherwise denigrate "Elizabethan language" while remaining ignorant of spiritual realities.

It’s not, and never has been, my intention to denigrate Elizabethan language.

 

[Matthias]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed:

”In 1400, it took monks a year to copy a Bible. Only institutions and the wealthy could afford one. Most people were illiterate. For centuries, the Catholic Church protected the Word of God from heretical translations - another reason to thank God for the Catholic Church!”

x.com

x.com

God works in mysterious ways. I thank him for it.

 

[Hobie]

Hello,

it is so nice to be here reading the awesome posts of so many people who are wonderful to learn from

I have been doing some studying myself and here is what I have learned.


35 % - of the Hebrew contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls match exactly identical with the Masoretic text

but only about 1 - 2 % - of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments found in Greek - show support todays version of the Greek Septuagint



the remaining other 55 % of the other Dead Sea Scroll materials do not match or confirm any bible version or any other manuscripts that have been found.


Over half - " 55 % " - of all Dead Sea Scroll materials discovered between 1947 and 1956
DO NOT support or match any other manuscripts nor match up to any bible translation anywhere.




The Dead Sea Scrolls are usually thought to have been produced by a group known as the Essenes.

The Essenes collected and stored the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves. Today they are labeled as unbelievers, heretical cult and are not considered mainstream Christianity.

the Essenes deny original sin, heaven, hell, and salvation through Christ.


In the dead sea scrolls there were found 203 verses in the Greek language - for the Old Testament

However, there are an approximate 23,145 tota l verses that are contained in the entire Hebrew Old Testament




Here are the 203 Greek passages found in the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament
Greek Septuagint verse found in the Dead Sea Scrolls


4Q119 - Greek Septuagint. Leviticus. Chapter 26: 2 – 3 - 6 – 9 – 14


4Q120 - Greek Septuagint. Leviticus 1: 11 _ 2: 3 - 4 - 7 _ 3: 4 - 7 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 13 - 14 _ 4: 3 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 11 - 18 - 19 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 30 _ 5: 6 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 _ 6: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5


4Q121 - Greek Septuagint. Numbers 3: 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 50 _ 4: 1 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 – 16
4Q122 - Greek Septuagint. Deuteronomy 11: - 4
7Q1 - Greek Septuagint. Exodus 28: 4 - 5 - 6 - 6 – 7


8HevXIIgr - Septuagint

Jonah 1: - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17
Jonah 2: -1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 6
Jonah 3: - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Jonah 4: - 1 - 2 - 5
Micah 1: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8
Micah 2: - 7 - 8
Micah 3: - 5 - 6
Micah 4: - 3 - 4 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Micah 5: - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Nahum 1: - 13
Nahum 2 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 12 - 13
Nahum 3: - 3 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15
Habakkuk 1: - 6 - 7 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 15 - 16 – 17
Habakkuk 2: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20
Habakkuk 3: - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15
Zephaniah 1: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18
Zephaniah 2: - 9 - 10
Zephaniah 3: - 7
Zechariah 1: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 12 - 13 – 21
Zechariah 2: - 3 - 4 - 5 - 7 - 8 - 12
Zechariah 3: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Zechariah 8: - 19 - 20 - 21 - 23
Zechariah 9: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5



about 1 - 2 % - of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments found in Greek - show support today’s version of the Greek Septuagint - MEANING THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS, VARIANTS AND PROBLEMS WHERE THESE MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT SUPPORT THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT


just because people were making Greek translations of the Old Testament does not provide support for a completed Greek Septuagint - especially when less that 1 % of Greek manuscripts exist - to show what existed as Old Testament Greek translation.

Many people are tempted to make exaggerate and invent false narratives and probably have even overly exaggerated what was actually found in Greek within Dead Sea Scrolls -

in other words, people will take small, tiny flakes and shreds of crumbled fragments that are only partial verses or partial chapters and then invent the narrative and idea that they had discovered a complete chapter or completed verse when only a tiny flake or fragment had actually been discovered.

they exaggerate

also the remaining 55 % of Dead Sea Scrolls are materials that exist - are either not supporting the Bible Translations we have today or they are Apocryphal writings or materials not related to the Bible
THE OTHER remaining 55 % OF of the Dead Sea Scrolls include: Exegetical texts, explaining history and Historical texts, Legal texts, Parabiblical texts, and Poetical/liturgical texts.

I do not believe that Apocryphal writings are scripture given from the Spirit of God.

For example The Apocryphal Book of Jubilees also is filled with many contradictions, for eXample the Jubilees Chapter 38 says that Jacob and Esau were in a war against one another and during a battle Jacob shot Esau in the chest with an arrow and killed Him. this is contradicted by the Bible.

As Paul said, there many that change the Word...