Most Likely, You’ve Never Read the True Bible in English

[Chrysostomos]

Have you ever questioned the accuracy of your English Bible? Most popular translations of the Old Testament, like the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV), are based on the Masoretic Text (MT), a Hebrew version of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, equivalent to the Old Testament) standardized by Jewish scholars between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, but edited as early as the 1st–2nd centuries AD after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD). Evidence suggests these edits deliberately shortened the chronology of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11, obscuring messianic prophecies like the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24–27, which points to Jesus Christ. In contrast, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation from the 3rd–2nd centuries BC, aligns closely with His life and ministry.

In Genesis 11, the Masoretic Text records Arphaxad fathering Shelah at age 35, while the Septuagint says 135—a 100-year difference. This pattern repeats across patriarchs, making the timeline from Adam to Abraham 1,948 years in the MT versus ~3,312 years in the LXX, a gap of 1,300–1,500 years. Why does this matter? The Septuagint’s longer timeline better matches archaeological evidence, such as the dating of Egypt’s pyramids (2600 BC) or Sumerian civilization (4000–3500 BC), lending credibility to the biblical narrative. More crucially, it supports the prophecy of Daniel’s 70 weeks. Starting from Artaxerxes I’s decree in 458 BC (Ezra 7:11–26), the 7 + 62 weeks (483 years) end in 26/27 AD, coinciding with Jesus’ baptism. The final week (7 years) covers His ministry and crucifixion (30–33 AD). The Masoretic Text’s shorter timeline and less explicit wording (“anointed one” vs. “Christ” in the LXX) make this prophecy less clear, potentially leading readers to doubt its connection to Jesus.

Why did Jewish scholars alter the Masoretic Text? Likely to weaken messianic interpretations after Christianity’s rise, as the Septuagint’s chronology clearly points to Jesus. So why did English translators, following the Catholic Vulgate (4th century), use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint, which was quoted in the New Testament and used by early Christians? Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, prioritized Hebrew manuscripts (Hebraica veritas), possibly to align with Jewish communities or standardize the text. Yet, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Septuagint often reflects older Hebrew texts, suggesting it’s more reliable. Most English Bibles inherit this choice, obscuring the prophecy’s clarity.

Fortunately, a few English translations do justice to the Septuagint’s chronology and wording, preserving its alignment with Jesus as the Messiah. These include:
Brenton’s Septuagint (1844)
New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (2007)
Orthodox Study Bible (2008)

Sadly, these translations are rare, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them, relying instead on Masoretic-based Bibles that obscure the full clarity of prophecies like Daniel’s 70 weeks. This raises a critical question: if the Septuagint offers a more accurate timeline pointing to Jesus, why do we continue using translations that muddy the waters?

 

[Windmill Charge]

Have you ever questioned the accuracy of your English Bible? Most popular translations of the Old Testament, like the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV), are based on the Masoretic Text (MT), a Hebrew version of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, equivalent to the Old Testament) standardized by Jewish scholars between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, but edited as early as the 1st–2nd centuries AD after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD). Evidence suggests these edits deliberately shortened the chronology of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11, obscuring messianic prophecies like the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24–27, which points to Jesus Christ. In contrast, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation from the 3rd–2nd centuries BC, aligns closely with His life and ministry.

In Genesis 11, the Masoretic Text records Arphaxad fathering Shelah at age 35, while the Septuagint says 135—a 100-year difference. This pattern repeats across patriarchs, making the timeline from Adam to Abraham 1,948 years in the MT versus ~3,312 years in the LXX, a gap of 1,300–1,500 years. Why does this matter? The Septuagint’s longer timeline better matches archaeological evidence, such as the dating of Egypt’s pyramids (2600 BC) or Sumerian civilization (4000–3500 BC), lending credibility to the biblical narrative. More crucially, it supports the prophecy of Daniel’s 70 weeks. Starting from Artaxerxes I’s decree in 458 BC (Ezra 7:11–26), the 7 + 62 weeks (483 years) end in 26/27 AD, coinciding with Jesus’ baptism. The final week (7 years) covers His ministry and crucifixion (30–33 AD). The Masoretic Text’s shorter timeline and less explicit wording (“anointed one” vs. “Christ” in the LXX) make this prophecy less clear, potentially leading readers to doubt its connection to Jesus.

Why did Jewish scholars alter the Masoretic Text? Likely to weaken messianic interpretations after Christianity’s rise, as the Septuagint’s chronology clearly points to Jesus. So why did English translators, following the Catholic Vulgate (4th century), use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint, which was quoted in the New Testament and used by early Christians? Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, prioritized Hebrew manuscripts (Hebraica veritas), possibly to align with Jewish communities or standardize the text. Yet, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Septuagint often reflects older Hebrew texts, suggesting it’s more reliable. Most English Bibles inherit this choice, obscuring the prophecy’s clarity.

Fortunately, a few English translations do justice to the Septuagint’s chronology and wording, preserving its alignment with Jesus as the Messiah. These include:
Brenton’s Septuagint (1844)
New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (2007)
Orthodox Study Bible (2008)

Sadly, these translations are rare, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them, relying instead on Masoretic-based Bibles that obscure the full clarity of prophecies like Daniel’s 70 weeks. This raises a critical question: if the Septuagint offers a more accurate timeline pointing to Jesus, why do we continue using translations that muddy the waters?

Translators of the bible are aware of the various claims about the different sources of the bible.
They have spent time studing the words, they have identified the various families of translations and can track how scribal errors have moved through these versions and because of the great number of documents can identify those errors.

Are there errors?
look at the footnotes in a good translation. They will tell you about questionable words/passages, alternative wording etc etc etc.


May I suggest you read what a translator has written about biblical translation.
Please note his point number 4.

Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text

There’s an old Italian proverb that warns translators about jumping in to the task: “Traduttori? Traditori!” Translation: “Translators? Traitors!” The English proverb, “Something’s always lost in t…

danielbwallace.com

 

[HealthyShape]

True scholarship is about critical objectivity, not about taking sides.

The New Testament writers citations sometimes match the Septuagint, sometimes the Masoretic text and sometimes neither.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also sometimes align with the Septuagint (e.g. Jeremiah), sometimes are almost word for word like the Masoretic Text (e.g. Isaiah).

There is also not just one Septuagint, but it has several quite different versions (e.g. Old Greek and Theodotion in Daniel).

Translations:
Brenton's is old and not too great, not too bad. Better than NETS though.
NETS is too scholarly, I tried to read it several times, but it is unreadable. The sentence constructions, words selection...not suitable for normal, smooth reading.

The oldest more or less complete manuscripts of the Septuagint text is Codex Vaticanus (4th century). Small scraps of parts that are older are not too large.

Modern translations like NIV try to combine both Septuagint and the MT to get the best reading of the text. It is worse with older translations like the KJV, which are solely based upon the MT. Their readers are cut off from this "Christian" line of text completely.

Mainstream scholarship is that in the first century, there have already been several textual versions of the Old Testament, proto-Septuagint, proto-Masoretic and even others. These two survived because one was adopted by the church and the other by the Jews. However, both underwent some editing and some standardization from the original state of textual chaos. Indeed, both sides preferred the readings that were more compatible with their beliefs.

The situation is that the Old Testament Scriptures are not preserved too well for us today. Which is not such a big problem, because these were not meant for us, anyway. Christians dwelling in the old Jewish stories or in already fulfilled prophecies are working with and relying on words that are frequently not certain.

IMO - if God wanted to tell us something about our future, He would tell us, not some Jewish prophet 3,000 years ago and puzzling us with how to actually reconstruct the text and how to understand the archaic images, names, places and metaphors.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Translators of the bible are aware of the various claims about the different sources of the bible.
They have spent time studing the words, they have identified the various families of translations and can track how scribal errors have moved through these versions and because of the great number of documents can identify those errors.

Are there errors?
look at the footnotes in a good translation. They will tell you about questionable words/passages, alternative wording etc etc etc.


May I suggest you read what a translator has written about biblical translation.
Please note his point number 4.

This thread focuses on the numerical differences in the patriarchs’ chronologies (Genesis 5 and 11) between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT), as seen in English translations like KJV, NIV, and ESV. For example, Genesis 11:12–13 in the LXX states Arphaxad fathered Shelah at 135 years, while the MT says 35 years—a 100-year gap. This shortens the MT’s timeline from Adam to Abraham by 1,300–1,500 years (1,948 years vs. ~3,312 in the LXX), obscuring messianic prophecies like Daniel 9:24–27, which in the LXX points to Jesus (458 BC to 26/27 AD). Compare the numbers yourself.

Your reference to point 4 in the article is off-topic. It claims “Orthodox scribes severely corrupted the New Testament,” which is irrelevant to Old Testament chronologies. Calling the early church “Orthodox” is inaccurate, as no division into Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant existed before the 1054 schism. The article’s author either ignores this or misleads readers.

Early Christians, who later became Orthodox, used the Septuagint, not the MT, for the Old Testament. The LXX’s longer chronology aligns with archaeological evidence (e.g., Egyptian pyramids, ~2600 BC) and clearly supports messianic prophecies, like Daniel’s 70 weeks, fulfilled in Jesus. Catholics erred gravely by adopting the MT for the Vulgate’s Old Testament in the 4th century, following Jerome’s preference for Hebrew manuscripts (Hebraica veritas) over the LXX, used by early Christians and quoted in the New Testament. This choice obscured prophecies pointing to Jesus, constituting a departure from the apostolic tradition—arguably a heresy. Protestants, inheriting this error through MT-based translations (KJV, NIV, ESV), further perpetuated this deviation, weakening the messianic clarity of the Old Testament. Why cling to the MT when the LXX, preserved by the Orthodox, offers truth?

 

[Chrysostomos]

True scholarship is about critical objectivity, not about taking sides.

The New Testament writers citations sometimes match the Septuagint, sometimes the Masoretic text and sometimes neither.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also sometimes align with the Septuagint (e.g. Jeremiah), sometimes are almost word for word like the Masoretic Text (e.g. Isaiah).

There is also not just one Septuagint, but it has several quite different versions (e.g. Old Greek and Theodotion in Daniel).

Translations:
Brenton's is old and not too great, not too bad. Better than NETS though.
NETS is too scholarly, I have it printed, I tried several times, but it is unreadable. The sentence constructions, words selection...not suitable for normal, smooth reading.

The oldest more or less complete manuscripts of the Septuagint text is Codex Vaticanus (4th century). Small scraps of parts that are older are not too large.

Modern translations like NIV try to combine both Septuagint and the MT to get the best reading of the text. It is worse with older translations like the KJV, which are solely based upon the MT. Their readers are cut off from this "Christian" line of text completely.

Mainstream scholarship is that in the first century, there have already been several textual versions of the Old Testament, proto-Septuagint, proto-Masoretic and even others. These two survived because one was adopted by the church and the other by the Jews. However, both underwent some editing and some standardization from the original state of textual chaos. Indeed, both sides preferred the readings that were more compatible with their beliefs.

The situation is that the Old Testament Scriptures are not preserved too well for us today. Which is not such a big problem, because these were not meant for us, anyway. Christians dwelling in the old Jewish stories or in already fulfilled prophecies are working with and relying on words that are frequently not certain.

IMO - if God wanted to tell us something about our future, He would tell us, not some Jewish prophet 3,000 years ago and puzzling us with how to actually reconstruct the text and how to understand the archaic images, names, places and metaphors.

This thread is unique because it focuses on numbers—specifically, the dates of the patriarchs’ births and deaths in Genesis 5 and 11. There’s no need to take sides here; just grab a calculator and compare the figures.

Evidence that Jewish rabbis in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD deliberately altered the chronology of the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh is compelling. This text, standardized between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, shortens the timeline of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 by approximately 1,300–1,500 years compared to the Septuagint. For example, Arphaxad fathers Shelah at 35 years in the Masoretic Text but at 135 years in the Septuagint, extending the chronology to Abraham’s birth (3,312 years from Adam in the Septuagint versus 1,948 in the Masoretic). These changes were not accidental: the rabbis understood that the Septuagint’s original chronology, from the Greek translation of the Tanakh in the 3rd–2nd centuries BC, made the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24–27 point precisely to Jesus Christ. From Artaxerxes I’s decree in 458 BC (Ezra 7:11–26), 7 + 62 weeks (483 years) end in 26–27 AD, coinciding with Jesus’ baptism, while the final week covers His ministry and crucifixion (30–33 AD). In the Masoretic Text, these dates do not align, weakening the messianic interpretation.

This raises a troubling question: why did Christians, especially the Catholic Church with the Vulgate in the 4th century, prefer the Masoretic Text, which was edited, over the Septuagint, used by early Christians and quoted in the New Testament? Were they unaware that the Masoretic Text’s dates differ from the Septuagint’s? Did they not realize that Daniel’s prophecy, according to the Septuagint’s chronology, is perfectly fulfilled in Christ? The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint reflects older Hebrew manuscripts. So how can it be justified that Christians adopted a text that obscures messianic prophecies?

 

[HealthyShape]

why did Christians, especially the Catholic Church with the Vulgate in the 4th century, prefer the Masoretic Text, which was edited, over the Septuagint, used by early Christians and quoted in the New Testament? Were they unaware that the Masoretic Text’s dates differ from the Septuagint’s? Did they not realize that Daniel’s prophecy, according to the Septuagint’s chronology, is perfectly fulfilled in Christ? The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint reflects older Hebrew manuscripts. So how can it be justified that Christians adopted a text that obscures messianic prophecies?

Why don't you study it a bit? These are quite basic questions you will find answers for quite quickly. Or ask AI, at least.

Also, read my post again, because it seems you still believe the NT quotes only the LXX or that the DSS support only the LXX. It is more complicated than that.

 

[Chrysostomos]

@HealthyShape
You call my question—“How can Christians justify adopting a text that obscures messianic prophecies?”—basic, yet you haven’t answered it. This is critical: someone checking Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24–27) in KJV, NIV, or ESV will miscalculate the dates, as the Masoretic Text (MT) shortens the Genesis 5 and 11 chronology, misaligning with Jesus’ life (458 BC to 26/27 AD in the Septuagint, LXX). Similarly, the MT’s timeline contradicts archaeology. For example, Egyptian pyramids (2600 BC) and Sumerian civilization (4000–3500 BC) indicate a longer human history, aligning with the LXX’s ~3,312 years from Adam to Abraham, not the MT’s ~1,948 years. This discrepancy can lead readers to doubt the Bible’s reliability, rejecting its messianic truth.

I’m studying this, as you suggest, and I’m baffled: why do Christians use MT-based translations that obscure Jesus as the Messiah? Using KJV, NIV, or ESV spreads a false chronology, sidelining true LXX-based translations like Brenton’s Septuagint, NETS, or Orthodox Study Bible. This is a matter of life and death for truth: all MT-based translations must be eradicated—completely removed from existence—to prevent obscuring the true text. If you have an AI subscription, ask it why Christians cling to the MT, and share the answer. How do you justify using a text that hides Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy?

How do you think AI would answer this: Why did the Vulgate’s translators choose the Masoretic Text, with its demonstrably false chronology that misleads about Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy, instead of the Septuagint, where the chronology clearly points to Jesus Christ? Would AI suggest that the Vulgate’s translators deliberately conspired with Jewish rabbis to hide Daniel’s prophecy fulfilled in Jesus?
"Try asking this question to AI and don't forget to share its response."

 

[ProDeo]

There are serious issues comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic Text, Isa 53 and Psalm 22 as examples.

ESV - Ps 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

LXX - O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

We are used to understand Psalm 22 as a prophecy of Jesus crucified, but in the LXX it's about David.

 

[Chrysostomos]

@ProDeo
The Septuagint’s (LXX) phrasing, “the account of my transgressions”, doesn’t undermine its messianic significance. Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, using the LXX, interpreted this as prophecy fulfilled in Christ, seeing “transgressions” as the sins of humanity He bore (Isa 53:4–6). Whether with “words of my groaning” (MT, as in ESV) or “words of my transgressions” (LXX), Psalm 22 strikingly aligns with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. This is a matter of textual interpretation.

My thread, however, focuses on numbers—specifically, the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies. The LXX’s dates (e.g., Arphaxad fathering Shelah at 135 years, Gen 11:12–13) mathematically confirm Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy (Dan 9:24–27), pointing to Jesus (458 BC to 26/27 AD). The MT’s compressed timeline (Arphaxad at 35 years, ~1,948 years from Adam to Abraham vs. ~3,312 in LXX) obscures this. Moreover, the MT contradicts archaeology (e.g., Egyptian pyramids, ~2600 BC; Sumer, ~4000–3500 BC), while the LXX aligns with it. This distorted chronology in MT-based translations (KJV, NIV, ESV) risks misleading readers about biblical reliability and messianic prophecies.

 

[HealthyShape]

@HealthyShape
You call my question—“How can Christians justify adopting a text that obscures messianic prophecies?”—basic, yet you haven’t answered it.

Sadly, I am not paid for answering questions on online forums and my free time and energy are limited. I said you should study it a bit, because the information is out there and it is not hard to find.

Historically, the protestant reformation wanted to translate from original languages instead of from Latin. They had only the Textus Receptus for their New Testament (Stephanus and later Beza editions) and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. DSS were not discovered yet. The LXX was viewed as a poor translation of the Masoretic text till the discovery of DSS.

Most modern translations prefer scholarly, scientific way - textual criticism. NIV, for example, shows critical differences between LXX and MT so that a reader can see both. I think that some study editions include also important DSS differences, but there is no translation based upon DSS, because it is a group of various readings and scraps.

So, if you want to translate directly from Hebrew, there is nothing standardized like the Masoretic Text. Translating the OT from other translation like Greek is like translating it from Peshitta or from Vulgate. And DSS are just fragments, they are not the complete text of the Old Testament to translate from. Also, DSS show both proto-LXX and proto-masoretic readings (and readings found in neither), so I do not know what coherent textual line you would get from that.

 

[quietthinker]

Have you ever questioned the accuracy of your English Bible? Most popular translations of the Old Testament, like the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV), are based on the Masoretic Text (MT), a Hebrew version of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, equivalent to the Old Testament) standardized by Jewish scholars between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, but edited as early as the 1st–2nd centuries AD after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD). Evidence suggests these edits deliberately shortened the chronology of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11, obscuring messianic prophecies like the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24–27, which points to Jesus Christ. In contrast, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation from the 3rd–2nd centuries BC, aligns closely with His life and ministry.

In Genesis 11, the Masoretic Text records Arphaxad fathering Shelah at age 35, while the Septuagint says 135—a 100-year difference. This pattern repeats across patriarchs, making the timeline from Adam to Abraham 1,948 years in the MT versus ~3,312 years in the LXX, a gap of 1,300–1,500 years. Why does this matter? The Septuagint’s longer timeline better matches archaeological evidence, such as the dating of Egypt’s pyramids (2600 BC) or Sumerian civilization (4000–3500 BC), lending credibility to the biblical narrative. More crucially, it supports the prophecy of Daniel’s 70 weeks. Starting from Artaxerxes I’s decree in 458 BC (Ezra 7:11–26), the 7 + 62 weeks (483 years) end in 26/27 AD, coinciding with Jesus’ baptism. The final week (7 years) covers His ministry and crucifixion (30–33 AD). The Masoretic Text’s shorter timeline and less explicit wording (“anointed one” vs. “Christ” in the LXX) make this prophecy less clear, potentially leading readers to doubt its connection to Jesus.

Why did Jewish scholars alter the Masoretic Text? Likely to weaken messianic interpretations after Christianity’s rise, as the Septuagint’s chronology clearly points to Jesus. So why did English translators, following the Catholic Vulgate (4th century), use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint, which was quoted in the New Testament and used by early Christians? Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, prioritized Hebrew manuscripts (Hebraica veritas), possibly to align with Jewish communities or standardize the text. Yet, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Septuagint often reflects older Hebrew texts, suggesting it’s more reliable. Most English Bibles inherit this choice, obscuring the prophecy’s clarity.

Fortunately, a few English translations do justice to the Septuagint’s chronology and wording, preserving its alignment with Jesus as the Messiah. These include:
Brenton’s Septuagint (1844)
New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (2007)
Orthodox Study Bible (2008)

Sadly, these translations are rare, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them, relying instead on Masoretic-based Bibles that obscure the full clarity of prophecies like Daniel’s 70 weeks. This raises a critical question: if the Septuagint offers a more accurate timeline pointing to Jesus, why do we continue using translations that muddy the waters?

Ahhh yes, the 'true bible'....whatever that means.
If you understand a second language you will know the difficulty of translating from other cultures/ languages, let alone translating from text which is thousands of years old. If you only speak one language, you wont be able to comprehend that difficulty.
First of all there is the idiom. That should be enough to alert one to the complexity of translation.
Secondly, there is the bias of the translator. Nobody translates in a vacuum. Every translator brings their paradigm to the task .....so when there is talk of a 'true bible', automatically there is the assumption by those that use that term, that idiom in language and bias do not factor in.....as if one is not subject to these factors.

If I said, it's raining cats and dogs while speaking to a person unfamiliar with that English idiom you could excuse them for thinking I meant pussies and puppies were falling out of the sky. Conversely, how would you translate that idiom into a culture that doesn't use that particular idiom?

 

[MatthewG]

There are many individuals who claim deep knowledge of biblical languages like Hebrew and Greek, yet often haven’t engaged with the Bible itself in a meaningful, personal way.

Debate around Scripture is widespread, but in reality, a significant portion of people rarely read it for themselves. While I’m not one to lean heavily on statistics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage of those who actively study the Bible is relatively small—perhaps even less than 10% of the population.

As for me, I’ll be honest: it’s been a while since I’ve read the Bible consistently. But I still recognize the value of approaching it with humility, rather than relying solely on intellectual claims or theological posturing.



I can read any bible just fine in english. I have Youngs Literal Translation. NKJV, KJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT.


Resouces concerning words: Vines Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, Biblehub, BlueLetterBible, Concordance....

/////////////////////////// I can read just fine but can't spell.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Sadly, I am not paid for answering questions on online forums and my free time and energy are limited. I said you should study it a bit, because the information is out there and it is not hard to find.

Historically, the protestant reformation wanted to translate from original languages instead of from Latin. They had only the Textus Receptus for their New Testament (Stephanus and later Beza editions) and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. DSS were not discovered yet. The LXX was viewed as a poor translation of the Masoretic text till the discovery of DSS.

Most modern translations prefer scholarly, scientific way - textual criticism. NIV, for example, shows critical differences between LXX and MT so that a reader can see both. I think that some study editions include also important DSS differences, but there is no translation based upon DSS, because it is a group of various readings and scraps.

So, if you want to translate directly from Hebrew, there is nothing standardized like the Masoretic Text. Translating the OT from other translation like Greek is like translating it from Peshitta or from Vulgate. And DSS are just fragments, they are not the complete text of the Old Testament to translate from. Also, DSS show both proto-LXX and proto-masoretic readings (and readings found in neither), so I do not know what coherent textual line you would get from that.

You say you’re not paid to answer questions on forums and your time is limited. Neither am I, yet I participate here freely to share knowledge and seek truth, as do many others. Isn’t that the purpose of public forums—to exchange ideas, not to chase profit?

You claim the Septuagint (LXX) was considered a poor translation of the Masoretic Text (MT) until the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) were discovered. This is a misunderstanding. The LXX, translated in the 3rd–2nd century BC from ancient Hebrew texts, predates the MT, standardized by Jewish rabbis between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, by centuries. No serious scholar could view the LXX as a translation of the MT—it’s based on older Hebrew manuscripts, closer to the originals. The DSS, discovered in the 20th century, confirm that some Hebrew texts align with the LXX, not the MT, proving its antiquity and reliability.

When choosing a text for translation, we must prioritize truth, established through verifiable evidence like numbers and archaeology. The Bible’s chronology in Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah) and Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham) provides a timeline from creation to Abraham, and the differences between the MT and LXX are stark:

Masoretic Text (MT): The MT gives ~1,948 years from Adam to Abraham. For example, Arphaxad fathers Shelah at 35 years (Gen 11:12–13), and the flood occurs ~1,656 years after Adam (Gen 5). This places the flood ~292 years before Abraham (1,948 – 1,656). Assuming Abraham was born ~2000 BC (a standard biblical estimate), the flood dates to ~2292 BC (2000 + 292).

Septuagint (LXX): The LXX gives ~3,312 years from Adam to Abraham. Arphaxad fathers Shelah at 135 years, and the flood occurs ~2,262 years after Adam. This places the flood ~1,050 years before Abraham (3,312 – 2,262). With Abraham at ~2000 BC, the flood dates to ~3050–3300 BC

Now, consider archaeology. The Great Pyramids of Giza were built around 2630–2500 BC, during Egypt’s Old Kingdom, a time of advanced civilization with cities, writing, and monumental architecture.
The Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia dates back to 4000–3500 BC. According to the Bible, the flood destroyed all civilizations except Noah’s family (Gen 7:21–23). In the MT, the flood at ~2292 BC is after the pyramids (2600 BC) and far too late for Sumer (~3500 BC), creating an impossible contradiction—how could pyramids exist before or immediately after a global flood? This makes the MT’s chronology unreliable, leading readers to doubt the Bible’s accuracy.

In contrast, the LXX’s flood at 3050–3300 BC allows 450–700 years before the pyramids (2600 BC) and aligns with the emergence of Sumer (~3500 BC). This gives ample time for humanity to repopulate and rebuild advanced civilizations post-flood, making the LXX’s timeline credible and consistent with archaeology.

So, we have two options: the MT, with a chronology that contradicts archaeology and weakens trust in biblical prophecies, or the LXX, which aligns with historical and archaeological evidence, supporting the Bible’s truth and its messianic prophecies. Which do you choose: a dubious text or one that upholds the truth?

 

[Chrysostomos]

Ahhh yes, the 'true bible'....whatever that means.
If you understand a second language you will know the difficulty of translating from other cultures/ languages, let alone translating from text which is thousands of years old. If you only speak one language, you wont be able to comprehend that difficulty.
First of all there is the idiom. That should be enough to alert one to the complexity of translation.
Secondly, there is the bias of the translator. Nobody translates in a vacuum. Every translator brings their paradigm to the task .....so when there is talk of a 'true bible', automatically there is the assumption by those that use that term, that idiom in language and bias do not factor in.....as if one is not subject to these factors.

If I said, it's raining cats and dogs while speaking to a person unfamiliar with that English idiom you could excuse them for thinking I meant pussies and puppies were falling out of the sky. Conversely, how would you translate that idiom into a culture that doesn't use that particular idiom?

Your point about translation difficulties, idioms, and translator bias is valid for nuanced texts, but it doesn’t apply here.
We’re talking about numbers—specifically dates. In any language, 1 equals 1.
There’s no idiom or cultural bias to wrestle with when translating numerical data like dates. Whether in Greek, Hebrew, English, or any other language, 1 = 1, not 2. Numbers are universal; they don’t shift like idioms such as "raining cats and dogs."

If a date is recorded as, say, 70 AD in one source, it remains 70 AD across languages—no room for misinterpretation. So, when discussing biblical timelines, the "true Bible" issue isn’t about translation complexity but about sticking to clear, objective data.

 

[quietthinker]

Your point about translation difficulties, idioms, and translator bias is valid for nuanced texts, but it doesn’t apply here.
We’re talking about numbers—specifically dates. In any language, 1 equals 1.
There’s no idiom or cultural bias to wrestle with when translating numerical data like dates. Whether in Greek, Hebrew, English, or any other language, 1 = 1, not 2. Numbers are universal; they don’t shift like idioms such as "raining cats and dogs."

If a date is recorded as, say, 70 AD in one source, it remains 70 AD across languages—no room for misinterpretation. So, when discussing biblical timelines, the "true Bible" issue isn’t about translation complexity but about sticking to clear, objective data.

If the obvious is clear and dates are consistent within all languages why the need to reference a 'true bible'?

 

[Chrysostomos]

There are many individuals who claim deep knowledge of biblical languages like Hebrew and Greek, yet often haven’t engaged with the Bible itself in a meaningful, personal way.

Debate around Scripture is widespread, but in reality, a significant portion of people rarely read it for themselves. While I’m not one to lean heavily on statistics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage of those who actively study the Bible is relatively small—perhaps even less than 10% of the population.

As for me, I’ll be honest: it’s been a while since I’ve read the Bible consistently. But I still recognize the value of approaching it with humility, rather than relying solely on intellectual claims or theological posturing.



I can read any bible just fine in english. I have Youngs Literal Translation. NKJV, KJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT.


Resouces concerning words: Vines Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, Biblehub, BlueLetterBible, Concordance....

/////////////////////////// I can read just fine but can't spell.

NKJV, KJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT
All these translations rely on the Masoretic Text (MT) with its shorter chronology. If you cross-checked historical dates and archaeology, you’d find the MT places the Flood after the Egyptian pyramids were built. That would mean Egypt and Moses predate the Flood, not follow it—a serious chronological mess. You could easily draw wrong conclusions, especially if you didn’t know about the Septuagint (LXX) chronology, which aligns better with historical and archaeological evidence.

And that’s the catch. English translations of the LXX are scarce, not widely known, and mostly studied by a small circle of scholars. Meanwhile, the vast majority stick to MT-based translations, unknowingly perpetuating the Masoretes’ distortions.

 

[MatthewG]

People who can't read, or don't read, tell me I don't know anything so at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, except what is in that heart that no one can read.

 

[Chrysostomos]

If the obvious is clear and dates are consistent within all languages why the need to reference a 'true bible'?

Dates in the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic Text (MT) are consistently translated across languages—no disagreement there. The issue is which timeline is true. The LXX places the flood at 3050–3300 BC, 450–700 years before the pyramids (2600 BC), aligning with archaeology. The MT places the flood at 2292 BC, making the pyramids and Moses (308 years earlier) predate the flood, which contradicts the Bible (Gen 7:21–23), as the flood destroyed all civilizations, and Moses came long after.

Popular translations like KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT rely on the MT. Without knowing the LXX, readers using these calculate a false timeline, placing Moses before the flood. The LXX, used by early Christians, gives a reliable chronology. Truth matters—choose the text that aligns with history and Scripture.

 

[Chrysostomos]

People who can't read, or don't read, tell me I don't know anything so at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, except what is in that heart that no one can read.

I’m not sure how your comment about hearts and reading connects to our discussion on biblical chronology, but truth matters.

 

[MatthewG]

Hello Chrysostomos,

Okay.

Thank you,
Matthew