I did not say as a whole it was Gnostic in origin nor did I imply it, so lets clarify. The Gnostic ideas and beliefs were picked up from ancient pagan religions and dovetailed with those found in the Apocrypha. If you want I can go deeper into that we can get into that when I get out of work today, but I think there is no disagreement here.

Letus clairfy some definations as words may be used in more than one way:

1. Apocrypha: Used to represent the extra writings placed in the LXX and in some modern Bibles.

2. Apocrypha: May be used to represent some writings that were produced during the Intertestamental period, some of which were as above and others were not as above.

3. Apocrypha: To include # 1, 2 and 4. This defination is not generally used by people who have studied the subject.

4. Pseudepigrapha: Certain writings alleged to be inspired which were produced generally following the time if Christ and which were never considered inspired by Christianity today.

I generally use # 1 and # 4, but occasionally use # 2. I never use # 3.

Well here is what I came across on the LXX/Septuagint and posted earlier as I dont think you were in the discussion or thread back then.

"The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitamacy. But why is this important to them.

his so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was referring to....


The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus"
Answers to Your Bible Version questions
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/septuagint.php

and here is more..."The greatest challenge for those promoting Christ's use of the LXX is overcoming the biblical passages which declare His exclusive use of the Hebrew text. Since the Lord had the preserved Hebrew text, and since He could speak and read Hebrew, He had no necessity to use the LXX, whether it was in existence or not in the first century.

Other challenges to those who must disprove Christ's non-use of the LXX include the history, character and known errors of the LXX. Concerning it history, several questions arise immediately from the letter of Aristeas. These questions include when was it originally translated, by how many Jewish elders, and how much of the OT? Thackeray critically admits that the date of the LXX ranges from the fourth century BC to the second century BC, that the number of Jewish translators were seventy (LXX) or seventy-two (LXXII), and that the translation may have only included the Pentateuch. He states, "Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer...yet the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction."[31]

The character of the LXX is suspect as well. The current LXX[32] contains the Apocrypha intermingled with the canonical books of the Tanak. Furthermore the LXX scrambles the Hebrew text at places especially in the Psalms (e.g., 9 and 10 are a single Psalm), and in Jeremiah (vv. 46-51 come after v. 25:13).

The LXX is rife with errors, omissions and transcriptional gaffes. For instance, the LXX adds 586 years to the time from Adam to the Flood in Gen. 5. There is hardly a page in the LXX where errors do not abound. This author records several alleged errors in the Masoretic text "corrected" by the LXX (Ps. 2:9; Ps. 145; Amos 5:26).[33] A recent discovery by this same author recognized that the translators of the Book of Daniel apparently misread the resh in Meltzar's name as a daleth, and translated it as "[A]melsad." Another discovery involves the effort of the LXX "to smooth out"[34] the change of person in Hosea 2:6. The Lord addressed Israel with the second person suffix ("thy way") and then employed the third person "she shall seek." The LXX uses the third person throughout this verse. Unger frankly adds these comments about portions of the LXX concerning its questionable veracity: "The Psalms, on the other hand, and the Book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence...In the latter part of Jeremiah, the Greek...is unintelligibly literal.' The Book of Daniel is mere Midrashic paraphrase."[35]

Granting for a moment the unproved assumption that there was a complete LXX prior to Christ's ministry, one must still prove that the Lord Jesus Christ, who indeed did have the preserved Hebrew text (Mt. 4:4), would have any inclination, in precept or practice, to use a questionable translation in a secondary language to minister NT revelation to Jew or Gentile."

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/targums.htm

I have never held the LXX up as a good translation.

The story of the translation of the LXX is a combination of fact and myth--some true and some false.

I question some of what you have posted, but the LXX is not my interest and I would be the first to say that there is clearly some false stories connected with the translation of the LXX.

But you said the KJV was uncorrupted and was the "truth" according to how you said how Ellen White meant.

By the way, did you ever show where other versions were changed? Should quoting and off website count? What rules should be established in determining whether it has been "showed"?


So did the Bohemians have the "truth" and "foundations of Scripture" of the KJV or whatever you want to call it at the time?

Did both have the same scriptures? Or is "truth" and "foundations of Scripture" used here not what you make it out to be? By stating "a correspondence was opened", could that mean that the Waldensians were instructed into more truth and they did not have all the truth you intend?

I don't believe you've ever addressed why "truth" as Ellen White uses it in relation to the Waldenses means "the KJV" "the Majority Text".

The Jews would not change a word or delete or take out any of them because they felt every word was from God, so the text was carefully guarded. Not what can be said with the Minority text and the Alexandrian codices.

Your statement is a partial truth. It is true for some copies of the ancient MSS. But there is evidence that this was not true for every copy made by a Jew.

E.G. There is evidence that the Aramaic Taragums were produced by Jews. Yet, I doubt that you would suggest that your statement applies to them.

I could give you other examples, if I were to chose to do so. But, I will let it go with one at this point in time.

When people make statements like the above, they are often thinking of the work of the Masoretes. So, let us talk about them for a minute.

The Masoretes were a sect of Jewish scholars who lived in Tiberias, off the coast of the Seal of Galilee. They generally did thier work between 500 A.D. and 1000 A.D. Their work was to standardize the ancient MSS that existed of the O.T.

NOTE: As they did their work several hundred years after the time of Christ, they were working with MSS that were hundreds of years older. They attempted to standardize the MSS due to the fact that they differed.

Their work has become known as the Masoretic Text which forms the basis for much of what we know today as the O.T.

It should be pointed out that their work was done over several hundred years and by many people. So, there exists some differences in the individual work done by the various members of this sect. However, much of what we know today to be the Masoretic Text is due to the work of one family the Ben Asher family.

To be continued.

The ancient Biblical Hebrew in its written language did not have vowels. Part of the work of the Masoretes was to take the written Hebrew and according to oral tradition add what are called vowel points. IOW going by oral tratition, the Masoretes added vowels to the written language. NOTE: The ancient Hebrew was also written without spaces between words.

Let me illustrate how this would be in English:

THBYISRD What did I write? Did I write "The bay is red? Or, did I write "The boy is rude?

Going by context and oral tradition, the Masoretes added the appropriate vowels to make the written Hebrew read what they thought it should be.

Were they always correct? Well, their Masoretic Text does leave room for some questions today.

To be clear: The Masoretes added to the written Hebrew text of the ancient MSS. Therefore, we cannot say that the Jewish scribes never added.

We are endebtd to the Masoretes for the Bible that we have today. I personally beleive that God has faithfully preserved in the Bible what God wanted preserved. But, we do a disservice to our people when we misrepresent what is truth.

The oldest of the Masoretic MSS that we have today is the Codex Cairensis which is dated to about 895 A.D. It is missing parats of the O.T. We also have as a Masoretic MSS the Alleppo Codex which contains the entire O.T. The Codex Leningradensis (1008 A.D.) is an important witness to the Masoretic Text, but not part of the Masoretic Text.

A central issue with the Masoretic Text is that they were produced from 1,000 to 2,000 years after the original auatographs.

One last comment for a while:

I value the KJV. While in college I read the Bible from cover to cover three times a year. Most of that was the KJV. This year, 2013, during the first four months I have read the NKJV through from beginning to end.

I have just about decided that the next time I will read the REB (Revised English Bible), but I have not begun that yet.

I am committed to the idea that God has preserved in the various Bible translations what God has wanted preserved. The alleged errors are minor. God's doctrinal statements are preserved in the various translations. We do not base our doctrinal beliefs upon one verse. That fact that in one translation a specific verse may not read exactly like it reads in anoather translation does not void our doctrinal understanding. God has preserved His truth. It is presesrved in the various MSS and in the translations that we have today.