The Occult Connections of Westcott and Hort

Nomad said:

We've been through this already. WH are not the basis for modern New Testaments. And no, the NA text is not based predominately on the Alexandrian text type like WH. I already pointed out the NA text is 'eclectic.' It draws on a wide range of source material.

The vast major of scholars follows the perspective that has given rise to such modern Greek texts as the United Bible Societies' 4th Edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. This approach would basically be characterized as "eclectic," in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide every variant. - Dr. James R. White - The King James Only Controversy, p. 151, 1995 edition

. . .Its basic difference from the text of the 16th to the 18th centuries is that the new text is not based on a small group of manuscripts (selected by chance, mostly of late date and poor quality), but on a review of all the evidence that is in any way relevant to the establishing of the original text, whether Greek manuscripts as early as the second century, or versions, or writngs of the early Church Fathers in various languages - always examining the original texts while constantly reviewing the external factors which affect the value of their testimony. - Kurt Aland - The Text of the New Testament, p. 36

. . .the editorial committee (or morer precisely its majority), decided to abandon the theories of Wescott-Hort and the "Western non-interpolations" as Kurt Aland had urged consistently in personal discussion and also in numerous esays. - Kurt Aland - The Text of the New Testament, p. 33

Now on to another matter. If you want to impugn the text of WH, you should do it on a textual critical basis, not on supposed personal character or anything else some might find distasteful in WH's lives. If you insist on this fallacious course then be consistent and forsake your KJV. First, the TR was compiled by a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic priest, named Erasmus. As a Roman Catholic priest he would have believed and done things that I'm sure you would find repugnant.

Erasmus' Vision Of The Church by Hilmar M. Pabel, p. 72

He (Erasmus) was quick to point out that he did not belong to Luther's camp and often professed his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church. In Sept. 1520 he assured Pope Leo that he was "not mad enough to make some bold move against the supreme vicar of Christ. 85

To another correspndent he affirmed, "Assailed as I have been from so many quarters which I could name and wooed with honeyed words from others, it has never been possible to detach me from my veneration from the Church of Rome. 86

In a letter of Dec. 6, 1520 to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggi he expressed his belief that the Roman Church does not dissent from the catholic church and declared, "I am not impius enough to dissent from the Catholic Church, I am not ungreatful enough to dissent from Leo. 87

One last thing. If you don't like the methods of modern textual criticism, then you should have a problem with how the KJV was compiled. The KJV translators did not utilize the Majority Text approach. They chose readings from the various versions of the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. That's right, not only did Erasmus publish 5 ammended editions of his TR, Stephanus and Beza each compiled their own editions of Erasmus' work, which the KJV translators utilized. They also did not shy away from using other resources as well, including latin texts. Here's an excerpt from the preface of the original 1611 KJV, which by the way, almost no one uses any more. Most who use the KJV don't even realize that they're most likely using the 1769 Blaney revision.

Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see. -The Translators to the Readers - Preface to the King James Version 1611, page 10

The full document can be seen here: http://www.ccel.org/...eface/pref1.htm

Click to expand...

Very good post, Erasmus used the text that was available but also used Jerome's corrupted translation to fill in the gaps.

Good thing that we have the Holy Spirit of Christ in us who leads us into all truth without concern for stumbling over any particular translation.
I've found the Authorized Version (AV) and it's Revision (RV) are closest to the preserved mind of God. But let all prove it out for themselves

Example;

False teaching and blashpemy lending support to the theory of a "trinity" as in this dishonest addition;


(1Jn 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It's not in the real Bible! Yet how many people don't know that?!

Following is the only righteous and true translation of this most important issue of the very person of God Himself;

(1Jn 5:7) And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The former translation is out of the Textus Receptus in our KJV Bibles even today, and is false doctrine from Rome, and paganism. It was never breathed by God.

The latter is pure untainted scripture. Notice how it contains nothing of the strange "three-some" polytheistic "trinity" of that false verse.

This is the kind of errors one finds in the King James. Don't rely on it in other words. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good

Praise Jesus!

The overall message of faith gets side-tracked by such a focus of attention given to manuscript authority. Some of these contentions need an answer though.

It is easy to make quotations based on other people’s opinions; it is another matter to read the original documents to form your own opinions. The above argument against Westcott and Hort is almost entirely based on other people’s opinions without reading the original documents. I have read many of the original documents (gnostic and christian), and I investigated W & H’s involvement into the Ghostly Guild, along with the origin and motives of the “received text”; and in my opinion the above information (first post) is a complete misrepresentation of those facts. There are too many things to mention; so I will basically say all of it is misrepresented.

One of the best things to happen to the bible-church was the acceptance of Westcott and Hort’s amazing contributions. This happened under God's providence in order to correct previous mistakes by the KJV translators. In my opinion they did not go far enough… they should have based the OT on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well. If Westcott and Hort were here translating today, they would have translated the OT based on the Greek also, because the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have vindicated this translation.

The Greek churches in Byzantine were not as thorough or pedantic at preserving manuscripts as the western church was. The fact that the Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can inside the Ottoman Empire was an example of Eastern carelessness. Many manuscripts were combined together without regard for the age or authority of the manuscript. The Complutensian Polyglot is a pertinent example of this. This manuscript was brought form Byzantine during the Muslim invasion and gifted to the king. The Complutensian was the source of Erasmus’s “received text” (majority text), and It now resides in the British Museum. The Complutensian was the Hexapla of the 15[sup]th[/sup] century; but compared to the Hexapla; the Complutensian Polyglot was a Datsun while Origen’s Hexapla was a Rolls Royce.

Note: an example of the Complutensian Polyglot of the septuagint is available from: http://www.apostolicbible.com/

Copying second hand information is often dangerous because it spreads like a Chinese whisper. The King James scholars were using a manuscript source as a propaganda tool for political reasons on behalf of the Anglican Church and England. They wanted to rival the Catholic Church in their influence and authority. The Anglicans were quite desperate for their own bible that could be received throughout the world; so it came with the endorsement of King James. The KJV is a political bible. It was used and promoted for political reasons. It always was, and it always will be, whether you are aware of this or not.

Fortunately all bibles lead us to Christ. If we get less hung up on the politics of the version, and more focused on the universal message, all of this talk about manuscript superiority will end. If someone drives a Datsun, they will still get to point B regardless. By arguing over such things we draw people’s attention away from Christ. When we do this, we are no longer serving the interest of our Lord; we are promoting the agendas of political and religous institutions. Christ came to save us from this very thing! Our sin nature rises up to establish institutional religions. Catholic and Protestants are the modern counterpart to Pharisees and Sadducees. I don't think God is proud of these petty divisions we have made.

God bless
Steve

I must live in an alternate universe. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would trust any translation. Where Westcott/Hort, NA, and the LXX vary, be prayerful, seek the mind of God, and be thankful you have a sentient mind and your God isn't a book, but a living perfect being. Where they don't vary (99.9% of the time), marvel and be thankful that God has preserved a witness from men in former times who knew the same God we know, whose witness points the way

My bibles:
http://www.scripture4all.org/
http://apostolicbible.com/

Hi ‘HeRoseFromTheDead’,

I also use the Apostolic Bible in The WORD bible software. Although I made those comments about the Complutensian above, I still personally prefer the Septuagint. The most frequent copy I use is the Thomson version, by Charles Thomson (the Secretary of the United States). It is very hard to get. It is based on the Alexandrian Codex. All bibles give us the basic requirement of salvation though. Obedience to these requirements is of greater priority than anything else. By loving God with all our mind, heart, soul and strength... God can from there teach us through the Holy Spirit.

God bless
Steve

Doctrines can easily be swayed by the wording or miss-wording in a text. Absent texts can undermine the author's intent of conveying a concept. The end result of a specific translation can be foundational on one's belief. Take the New World Translation of the Bible for an example.

That is true Justaname,

A person's inner motives will help them find the true shepherd. I question the inner motives of JW's with all of the hatred and bile they have toward everyone. They have got the bible they deserve...

God bless
Steve

Stefcui said:

I also use the Apostolic Bible in The WORD bible software. Although I made those comments about the Complutensian above, I still personally prefer the Septuagint. The most frequent copy I use is the Thomson version, by Charles Thomson (the Secretary of the United States). It is very hard to get. It is based on the Alexandrian Codex. All bibles give us the basic requirement of salvation though. Obedience to these requirements is of greater priority than anything else. By loving God with all our mind, heart, soul and strength... God can from there teach us through the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Hi Steve,
I use TheWord as well, and love it. A module of Thompson's version of the LXX will be available soon, if it isn't available already. Why do you think it is based on the Alexandrian Codex? I had assumed it was based on the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus simply because Azal is translated Jasod in Zechariah 14:5. If you like the LXX, you must check out my study on Zechariah 14:5.

Update: I believe the Apostolic Bible is not based strictly on the Complutensian. I was told by the translator that variants between it and the Aldine and Sixtine texts were translated according to which two texts agreed.

Hi ‘HeRoseFromTheDead’

Thomson’s bible does not say in the preface which manuscripts it uses, and the information is not available anywhere that I have found. Thomson himself seems not to know… there were unusual circumstances behind how he acquired the manuscripts. It is only by carefully comparing Thomson’s with the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Complutensian that I recognized that the distinctions are only found in the Alexandrian. The genesis genealogy is one of the reasons. From memory, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have gaps, whereas the Alexandrian is the most complete. I could give you more specific information if you required it; but I would need to look up my notes.

Yes, Charles VanderPool used other texts in his Apostolic Bible, but mainly the Complutensian. The other texts are really similar anyway. I asked Charles if "chapters" are found in the copies he has; in which he said ‘no’. There is a common misconception that the Jews had invented the OT chapters in the middle ages; and we christians simply borrowed from them. This is not true. The 4[sup]th[/sup] century manuscripts display chapters in the ancient Septuagint which are the same as what we have today. Our chapters in the bible come from the Septuagint translators. An example of this is in Acts 13:33. Luke was quoting the Septuagint when he quotes Psalm “Chapter 2”.

Note on Zechariah 14:5: Bretons has Jasod; Thomson’s has Jasod. New Jerusalem Bible has Jasod; Complutensian has Azal; Orthodox Study Bible (LXX) has Azal…

Wikipedia says: “transcribed Jasol (pronounced Yasol), Jasod (from Jasol). The rest of the scripture says (in the LXX only) that the valley shall be blocked up; which is in accord with findings in Israel by Daniel Wachs and Dov Levitte, and also confirmed by Josephus. Clermont-Ganneau also identifies Wady Yasul as Azal, which would account for the ancient name used in the LXX. The Pharisees translated the Masoretic scriptures hundreds of years later and very often used more recent names to replace older ones.

I am glad to hear of your knowledge in this area… Where do I find your post on Zechariah 14:5?

God bless
Steve

Stefcui said:

There is a common misconception that the Jews had invented the OT chapters in the middle ages; and we christians simply borrowed from them. This is not true. The 4[sup]th[/sup] century manuscripts display chapters in the ancient Septuagint which are the same as what we have today. Our chapters in the bible come from the Septuagint translators. An example of this is in Acts 13:33. Luke was quoting the Septuagint when he quotes Psalm “Chapter 2”.

I am glad to hear of your knowledge in this area… Where do I find your post on Zechariah 14:5?

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. Click on the link in my post above for the study. Very interested in any constructive feedback.

Update: That would severely impact a theory of mine if you are correct about Jasod appearing in an Alexandrian manuscript.

Hi ‘HeRoseFromTheDead’

On Zechariah 14

I congratulate you on such an impressive explanation of Zechariah 14. You placed a great deal of research into these verses, and you covered an immense amount of history and explanations behind textual traditions. I lack your patience and eye for detail.

You mention the translation from the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Marchalianus use the word Azal. If this is the case, I may be wrong about my previous assessment on Thomson’s version. I do not have the means to verify this statement one way or another. My daughter is learning Greek, but it is too much trouble for me to find the exact verse in the Alexandrian text (I think I have a copy in PDF). How did you discover this fact?

I think the overall emphasis of your commentary is that the prophecy of Zechariah 14 was fulfilled at Jesus’ first coming. Is this the right assessment? I did not read every part of it, as it is quite long, but as I said, it is very impressive. Thank you. You went to a lot of effort to present your findings… Is there a reason why this passage interests you so much?

God Bless
Steve

Stefcui said:

You mention the translation from the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Marchalianus use the word Azal. If this is the case, I may be wrong about my previous assessment on Thomson’s version. I do not have the means to verify this statement one way or another. My daughter is learning Greek, but it is too much trouble for me to find the exact verse in the Alexandrian text (I think I have a copy in PDF). How did you discover this fact?

Click to expand...

My knowledge that Yasod is found in Codices V and S, and Asael is found in Codices A and Marchalianus is based on what I've read at various places on the Internet. For example (I just did a quick search):

Stefcui said:

I think the overall emphasis of your commentary is that the prophecy of Zechariah 14 was fulfilled at Jesus’ first coming. Is this the right assessment? ... Is there a reason why this passage interests you so much?

Click to expand...

My purpose was to document the tremendous amount of evidence I found that Wady Yasul is Azal and the LXX rendering is correct. That's really it. Based on the evidence, I do believe that the events in Zechariah 14:4-5 have occurred, but can only speculate when.

I had no particular interest in this passage, but while trying to find Azal on Google Maps (based on Rabbi Joseph Schwarz's descriptions) came across Nahal Azal (actually labeled Nahal Etsel at the time; the Hebrew rendering of Azal is what caught my attention). That stimulated my interest. Then I found a paper that identified a landslide on the Mount of Olives next to this valley, then I found some old photos that showed tell-tale signs of a landslide at this same location, and on and on and on ... Quite a journey. The Internet made it possible. I'm still discovering stuff. Just found some old photos dating to the mid 1800s that clearly show a mass of slumping landslide rubble on the western slope of the Mount of Olives, probably dating to Uzziah's day.

Hi ‘HeRoseFromTheDead’

I found two references only on Google; and one is copying the other, so there was only 1 reference I found. This is not enough to convince me. It may be right, but it lacks evidence apart from someone’s say so. Two examples where the distinction between Brenton’s and Thomson’s is made are in the following:

• Jehoiachin is said to have been 18 years old when he began to reign in 2 Kings 24:8, and 2 Chronicles 36:9 states that he was 8 years old when he began to reign. These dates are a contradiction in both the Vaticanus and the Masoretic text; the Alexandrinus Codex (Thomson’s Bible) has the same date in both locations - 18 years old.
• In Genesis 5:25, Codex Vaticanus and Complutensian (Apostolic Bible Polyglot) have 167 as Methuselahs age at Lamech’s birth. From this Theophilus, Eusebius, Augustine and Syncellus receive their dates. The Codex Alexandrinus has 187; from this Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus and Eupolemus receive their dates (Thomson’s has 187 years).

Another good article on the Alexandrian Septuagint is by Barry Setterfield, found here: http://www.setterfie...nt_History.html

The distinctions Barry Setterfield makes between the Alexandrian and Vaticanus are there same distinctions found between Brenton’s and Thomson’s. This is not categorical proof; but it is something.
The following is another list of alterations that are found in bibles that are correct only in the Septuagint. This list ends here because I have not gotten around to finishing it:

• Genesis 2:1 - Christians know that God completed all His works on the 6[sup]th[/sup] day; and on the 7[sup]th[/sup] day God rested from all His works. This view is held in Christian tradition and in the Septuagint; yet it is not taught in the Masoretic Text at Genesis 2:1. The KJV reads: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.”
• Genesis 46:27 - the number of souls who travelled with Joseph into Egypt is said to be 70 in the Masoretic; and 75 in the Septuagint. Acts 7:14 shows the Septuagint to be correct; and the Masoretic (KJV-NIV) has an error.
• Genesis 7:11 - Noah’s flood began on the 17[sup]th[/sup] day in the Masoretic; yet the flood began on the 27[sup]th[/sup] day in the LXX. The flood lasted 1 year; and the date of the receding water is correct only in the Septuagint (Gen 8:14).
• Genesis 11:12 – Cainan, the forefather of Christ, is missing in the Masoretic Text, along with the dates of his birth and death; but he is present in the Septuagint. Luke 3:36 testifies that the Septuagint alone is correct, and the dates and order of the Masoretic have errors.
• Numbers 24:23 – Og is found in LXX in Balaam’s prophecy, but is missing from the MT (As in Amos 7:1)
• Judges 3:17 – Eglon is called “a very fat man” in the MT; or a “very polite man” in the LXX (Thomson’s).
• 1 Samuel 9:22 – LXX has “seventy men” who were leaders; MT has “thirty men”. The LXX has the correct numbers, as the precedent of 70 elders was established in the time of Moses (Exodus 24:9; Numbers 11:16), and continued until New Testament times (Ezekiel 8:11; Luke 10:1). The Jewish Sanhedrin had 70 elders.
• 1 Samuel 4:15-18 – Eli ruled for 20 years in the LXX, and died when he was 90 years old. The MT has Eli’s rule as 40 years, and dying when he was 98 years old.
• 1 Samuel 18:25-27 – LXX has 100 Philistines; MT has 100 Philistines in verse 25, and then in verse 27 MT has 200.
• 1 Samuel 23:13 – LXX has 400 men with David; whereas MT has 600 men. 22:2 shows LXX to be correct. Note: there were 600 men much later, which may have been the reason for the MT alteration (1 Samuel 25:13; 27:2; 30:9).
• 2 Samuel 6:1 – David has 70,000 men assembled in the LXX; whereas the MT has 30,000 men assembled.
• 2 Samuel 6:14 – David is “dancing with all his might” in the MT; whereas he is not dancing at all in the LXX. He is seen dancing by Saul’s daughter only in verse 16.
• 2 Samuel 8:1-2 – LXX has halves, MT has thirds.
• 2 Samuel 12:6 – LXX has seven times; MT has four times. David was following the law of “seven times” (Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, 28).
• Ezekiel 10:14 – The Masoretic has a complete verse that does not exist in the Septuagint, describing the four cherubs. The description in the Masoretic contradicts the vision Ezekiel previously gave of the four cherubs in Ezekiel 1:10, where the Ox is replaced by a Cherub. Ezekiel 10:20-22 confirms that these are the same creatures previously seen, with the same appearance, so the image has an error in the Masoretic.
• Daniel 4:33 – Nebuchadnezzar received “hairs like a lion” in the LXX, whereas he received “feathers like an eagle” in the Masoretic Text.
• Daniel 8:14 – MT has 2300; LXX has 2400.
• Amos 7:1 – Here Gog is mentioned in the Septuagint, but he is not mentioned in the Masoretic. The description is again used by John in the Apocalypse of the locusts with a king over them, which Amos says is Gog. Here John is quoting only the Septuagint.
• Zechariah 1:8 – Here the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse are pictured, but the Masoretic horseman are different in colour, and there are only 3 horseman (as in the NIV), whereas the Septuagint has the right number of horseman and the right colours, showing that John was quoting Zechariah from the Septuagint.

For someone reading this; they might get the idea that I am stating that the bible has errors. Well, no more so than the statements made in the first post concerning the differences between the received text and the Vaticanus of Westcott and Hort. I am aware there is difference in the manuscripts; but we are not to be alarmed by this. If we obey the words of Jesus, this information may only affect some of our doctrinal understandings, but it will not in any way alter our faith in God and our service to Him. In a way, all manuscripts teach us who Christ is. Teachers with a gift from God have the added burden of unravelling these details; but this does not and should not disturb the average Christian’s faith or practices. These diffences in the manuscripts occured in God's providence. God intended them to occur. It was up to us to be honest and diligent about what we believe, and why.

I hope this might add to your research.

God Bless
Steve

Steve said:

• Genesis 7:11 - Noah’s flood began on the 17[sup]th[/sup] day in the Masoretic; yet the flood began on the 27[sup]th[/sup] day in the LXX. The flood lasted 1 year; and the date of the receding water is correct only in the Septuagint (Gen 8:14).

I hope this might add to your research.

Click to expand...

Actually I was just looking at this verse in the MT and LXX. The 17th day of the 7th month is the beginning of the festival of tabernacles, i.e. the time of rest from the year's labors. Not sure if this is significant, but it sure seems like it would be considering that the ark came to rest on that day.

Instead of us hijacking this thread anymore, why don't we start a new post comparing the MT with the LXX. I think it will be very informative for everyone, and I would love to explore your research with you (and you can help me with mine ). I actually didn't give the LXX much thought until I started researching Azal, and eventually realized that the LXX rendering was correct. I have to make an effort usually to consult the LXX because it's not a habit. I didn't know that the LXX was right about Zechariah 1:8, and I should have known as much as I study the Revelation.

My apologies to everyone... We did get carried away. We will take our dry discussions to another post.

God Bless
Steve

Steve said:

Hi ‘HeRoseFromTheDead’

I found two references only on Google; and one is copying the other, so there was only 1 reference I found. This is not enough to convince me. It may be right, but it lacks evidence apart from someone’s say so. Two examples where the distinction between Brenton’s and Thomson’s is made are in the following:

• Jehoiachin is said to have been 18 years old when he began to reign in 2 Kings 24:8, and 2 Chronicles 36:9 states that he was 8 years old when he began to reign. These dates are a contradiction in both the Vaticanus and the Masoretic text; the Alexandrinus Codex (Thomson’s Bible) has the same date in both locations - 18 years old.
• In Genesis 5:25, Codex Vaticanus and Complutensian (Apostolic Bible Polyglot) have 167 as Methuselahs age at Lamech’s birth. From this Theophilus, Eusebius, Augustine and Syncellus receive their dates. The Codex Alexandrinus has 187; from this Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus and Eupolemus receive their dates (Thomson’s has 187 years).

Another good article on the Alexandrian Septuagint is by Barry Setterfield, found here: http://www.setterfie...nt_History.html

The distinctions Barry Setterfield makes between the Alexandrian and Vaticanus are there same distinctions found between Brenton’s and Thomson’s. This is not categorical proof; but it is something.
The following is another list of alterations that are found in bibles that are correct only in the Septuagint. This list ends here because I have not gotten around to finishing it:

• Genesis 2:1 - Christians know that God completed all His works on the 6[sup]th[/sup] day; and on the 7[sup]th[/sup] day God rested from all His works. This view is held in Christian tradition and in the Septuagint; yet it is not taught in the Masoretic Text at Genesis 2:1. The KJV reads: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.”
• Genesis 46:27 - the number of souls who travelled with Joseph into Egypt is said to be 70 in the Masoretic; and 75 in the Septuagint. Acts 7:14 shows the Septuagint to be correct; and the Masoretic (KJV-NIV) has an error.
• Genesis 7:11 - Noah’s flood began on the 17[sup]th[/sup] day in the Masoretic; yet the flood began on the 27[sup]th[/sup] day in the LXX. The flood lasted 1 year; and the date of the receding water is correct only in the Septuagint (Gen 8:14).
• Genesis 11:12 – Cainan, the forefather of Christ, is missing in the Masoretic Text, along with the dates of his birth and death; but he is present in the Septuagint. Luke 3:36 testifies that the Septuagint alone is correct, and the dates and order of the Masoretic have errors.
• Numbers 24:23 – Og is found in LXX in Balaam’s prophecy, but is missing from the MT (As in Amos 7:1)
• Judges 3:17 – Eglon is called “a very fat man” in the MT; or a “very polite man” in the LXX (Thomson’s).
• 1 Samuel 9:22 – LXX has “seventy men” who were leaders; MT has “thirty men”. The LXX has the correct numbers, as the precedent of 70 elders was established in the time of Moses (Exodus 24:9; Numbers 11:16), and continued until New Testament times (Ezekiel 8:11; Luke 10:1). The Jewish Sanhedrin had 70 elders.
• 1 Samuel 4:15-18 – Eli ruled for 20 years in the LXX, and died when he was 90 years old. The MT has Eli’s rule as 40 years, and dying when he was 98 years old.
• 1 Samuel 18:25-27 – LXX has 100 Philistines; MT has 100 Philistines in verse 25, and then in verse 27 MT has 200.
• 1 Samuel 23:13 – LXX has 400 men with David; whereas MT has 600 men. 22:2 shows LXX to be correct. Note: there were 600 men much later, which may have been the reason for the MT alteration (1 Samuel 25:13; 27:2; 30:9).
• 2 Samuel 6:1 – David has 70,000 men assembled in the LXX; whereas the MT has 30,000 men assembled.
• 2 Samuel 6:14 – David is “dancing with all his might” in the MT; whereas he is not dancing at all in the LXX. He is seen dancing by Saul’s daughter only in verse 16.
• 2 Samuel 8:1-2 – LXX has halves, MT has thirds.
• 2 Samuel 12:6 – LXX has seven times; MT has four times. David was following the law of “seven times” (Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, 28).
• Ezekiel 10:14 – The Masoretic has a complete verse that does not exist in the Septuagint, describing the four cherubs. The description in the Masoretic contradicts the vision Ezekiel previously gave of the four cherubs in Ezekiel 1:10, where the Ox is replaced by a Cherub. Ezekiel 10:20-22 confirms that these are the same creatures previously seen, with the same appearance, so the image has an error in the Masoretic.
• Daniel 4:33 – Nebuchadnezzar received “hairs like a lion” in the LXX, whereas he received “feathers like an eagle” in the Masoretic Text.
• Daniel 8:14 – MT has 2300; LXX has 2400.
• Amos 7:1 – Here Gog is mentioned in the Septuagint, but he is not mentioned in the Masoretic. The description is again used by John in the Apocalypse of the locusts with a king over them, which Amos says is Gog. Here John is quoting only the Septuagint.
• Zechariah 1:8 – Here the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse are pictured, but the Masoretic horseman are different in colour, and there are only 3 horseman (as in the NIV), whereas the Septuagint has the right number of horseman and the right colours, showing that John was quoting Zechariah from the Septuagint.

For someone reading this; they might get the idea that I am stating that the bible has errors. Well, no more so than the statements made in the first post concerning the differences between the received text and the Vaticanus of Westcott and Hort. I am aware there is difference in the manuscripts; but we are not to be alarmed by this. If we obey the words of Jesus, this information may only affect some of our doctrinal understandings, but it will not in any way alter our faith in God and our service to Him. In a way, all manuscripts teach us who Christ is. Teachers with a gift from God have the added burden of unravelling these details; but this does not and should not disturb the average Christian’s faith or practices. These diffences in the manuscripts occured in God's providence. God intended them to occur. It was up to us to be honest and diligent about what we believe, and why.

I hope this might add to your research.

God Bless
Steve

Click to expand...

Very good post, nice clean layout too. Please let me know when you two start a new thread I am very interested.