Comparing the Confessional Text position to modern reasoned eclecticism is comparing apples and oranges. Which TR? Practical answer, overwhelmingly, is Scrivener's.

@wordmagazine I agree and am on your side (mostly...kjv only here). Is there anything wrong in your opinion, scholarship wise,vof my claiming that the innerant greek text would be scrivener and it is the standard when tr variants arise? I really am wondering why that's not a superior position to what you're espousing as it also settles the which tr question. I do appreciate your work and it has helped me and I am aware of some of the variants, having read White's book and others. I know variants are very minor and not corruptions like NA. Thanks.

Inserting other parts of the text into different texts. See Ephesians 2:1 "and you hath he quickened" and II Samuel 23:8 is harmonized with I Chronicles 11:11 via italics. See also II Samuel 21:19 and I Chronicles 20:5. In all these instances, the KJV translators "Took" or "copied" portions of a different text and inserted them in a different part of the text.

None that I can verify.

SDG!

Wow, can you point me to a definitive printed edition of this reconstructed Paleo-Hebrew text that undergirds the Septuagint(s)? Since that cannot be produced, we'd better stick with the Masoretic Text.

@@wordmagazine We need to clarify a few things, as there are many urban legends regarding The Septuagint, this Greek Version of The Old Testament. The Septuagint was translated from Paleo Hebrew (Old Hebrew using the Paleo Hebrew script (alphabet) and the Old Hebrew Text was known to be about 1000 years older than The Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text was tampered with shortly after the Lord's ascension, fearing the Christian faith's relentless advance. Lord Jesus, The Messiah, the New Testament writers and especially Paul WOULD HAVE NEVER quoted from The Septuagint. It is just US who are stating that, and we are justified in doing so because The Septuagint confirms correctly most of their citations. But in reality, they quoted from Paleo Hebrew, which unfortunately we no longer have. The Old Text (Paleo) was lost and ALL WE HAVE LEFT is The Septuagint, which in turn was sanitized by the Greeks as well, however in most places it still retains a better reading than The Masoretic. We do have a few fragments found at The Dead See that confirm perfectly our hypothesis. What was quite surprising was the fact that the scribes, when even after the acceptance of The Assuri text, they encountered the words "I AM", were STILL using the Paleo Hebrew alphabet on a page that was entirely copied in the Assuri / Aramaic ABC. Very interesting... It is a little complicated, but I believe we do have enough authentic sources to make a brand new and correct translation of The English Bible. I am actively looking for individuals and try to work together and make a new, better translation. What we have had for the last 500 years is an incomplete and incorrect Bible. Terms like "hell", "begotten", Armagheddon, Antichrist and many other terms simply fabricated by The Greeks should have no place in a modern translation of The Bible, and in most ancient texts in both The New (Aramaic) and The Old (Old Hebrew)Testaments these "Holywood" terms are totally non-existent. The main concern is that we have tons of ignorance in our entire Christendom regarding the authentic Word of our Holy Triune ELOHIM. And I believe we have the capability to at least partially correct that. And we haven't even started to talk about New Testament yet... Legends: ***** ** Some say that Ptolomy sent gold and other treasures to Israel to ask them to send 72 scribes, 6 from each tribe, knowledgeable of both Hebrew and Greek and and translate the entire Scriptures - Old Testament - for Ptolomy's library in Alexandria, Egypt. ** They came, were taken to a certain island, separated into 72 rooms, translated in 72 days, and the translations were miraculously identical in ALL 72 COPIES OF THE SEPTUAGINT. Facts *** These are details selected from various sources, and some are my own observations and conclusions. The Judean leaders could not have sent 6 scribes from each tribe, as most of the tribes were already absorbed into may other nations for several centuries before, following their dispersal by the Babylonians. In fact I doubt that there were ANY scribes sent from Israel, as the Hellenized Judeans, locals in Egypt, most probably knew both Hebrew and Greek. And in reality, only the first five books of The Old Testament were immediately translated at about 250 years B.C. The rest were done way after. Sometime later, the building that was housing Ptolemy's library burned down, and The Septuagint went out in flames as well. Luckily before the fire at least one copy "went further out West", and The Greeks saved this copy, many other copies were also made from it, but unfortunately they for some reason "doctored" this Greek Edition of The Septuagint severely so now we have major additions, some verses are missing, and some heavily modified. The Septuagint, before the fire of course, was translated from the so called Paleo Hebrew script, which looked like this: VERY IMPORTANT: Please make a mental note that the letter "YOD", first line, tenth letter from the right (as it is written and read in Hebrew and Aramaic)- or first from the left. Hebrew used this alphabet for centuries, and they actually called it ...................... The more orderly ASSURY alphabet, adopted by both Hebrew and Aramaic, two sister languages - looks like this: Now, the same letter (10th, "YOD", or first on the second line, from right to left !) in this new alphabet contains a great secret. This is the "iota" - as Lord Jesus used it when said: "Not an "iota" will be changed... The letter "iota" is the smallest letter in The Hebrew alphabet BUT ONLY IN THE ASSURY ALPHABET, - EXCLUSIVELY ! Eventually though, The Aramaic abandoned the Assuri alphabet in favor of The Estrangela Alphabet, - probably to "divorce" themselves from their Judean brothers, for obvious reasons - which looks like this: This is the most preferred alphabet to those who study The Aramaic New Testament, letters and words are read from right to left, easy to learn but at least in the case of The New Testament the text is made up of consonants exclusively, you have to guess the correct vowels... No other known alphabet used in our narrative contains the letter "iod" and that is so small ! Why is this so important ? This proves that Lord Jesus and The New testament writers NEVER USED GREEK or The Septuagint when they quoted from The Old Testament ! They used a much older Version of The Old Testament, which was using the Paleo Hebrew script, but later adopted The ASSURI script and The New Testament writers used a different version of The Old Testament, after THIS script came into use ! The Greek letter "IOTA" - "I", "i" is NOT the smallest letter as in Assuri "iod", in the Paleo HEBREW script "yod" is even larger, so the only variant of "iod" that is the smallest letter of the Alphabet = is The "Assuri Yod" ! So then THIS IS THE VERSION that Lord Jesus read in the Synagogue - Hebrew, Samaritan or Aramaic scrolls and NOT The SEPTUAGINT codex ! Lord Jesus, The Gospel writers and especially Paul WOULD HAVE NEVER EVEN THINK OF QUOTING FROM THE SEPTUAGNT - NEVER EVER ! I CANNOT GIVE ANY REFERENCES AT THIS TIME, BUT I BELIEVE the authentic Septuagint has been lost ( I believe in a fire at the Library in Alexandria, Egypt, as stated above. ) Luckily for us Christians, a copy was saved by the Greeks somehow, but is has been corrupted extensively - just like The New Testament is - Greek "specialty" as usual !! However, even with corruptions, IT IS STILL BETTER than The Masoretic text, which in turn has been corrupted as well - this time - for reasons that I will not bother to list here. So where did the New Testament writers cite from ? FROM THE VERY AUTHENTIC PALEO - HEBREW SCRIPTURES - 1000 years before any page of The Masoretic text saw the light of day or ever existed ! That was also the source for The Septuagint, and that is the reason that many times we can still find a confirmation of New Testament quotations in The Septuagint which are not present in The Masoretic !!! We should get together and IMMEDIATELY start planning to make A NEW TRANSLATION of The Bible ! Bible Translations from The Masoretic text is sadly so off... But now - between The Masoretic, The Septuagint or maybe even The Ethiopian Version plus The Aramaic Version of The New Testament - we know a lot better how an authentic line or text or even an entire passage should sound and be rendered correctly. I have bad news regarding The New Testament as well - it is in an even worse shape than The Old Testament ! Today we know that The Aramaic Version of The new Testament is EXACTLY what The Paleo - Hebrew is for The Old Testament - Please check here: TheAramaicScriptures.com I have studied these matters for years and my faith is stronger than ever before knowing that I can go to The Authentic Word of ELOHIM - in both The Old and New Testaments: The Scriptures make a lot of sense when you read any passage closest to the authentic text !

Fascinating, Pastor Pitman. I couldn't attend your breakout session, and I'm glad to hear it, having listened now. I look forward to seeing what John Bois' notes on the Authorized Version translation process have to say. (Isn’t it a wonder to live in a time when we can have notes from John Bois arrive at the door when we hear of them?) What a blessing. Thank you for mentioning John Burgon on the Septuagint; I am embarrassed that I hadn't considered him on the topic. God bless you, brother.

Thank you!

Using a Greek translation of the Hebrew to inform how to translate the Hebrew into English is altogether different from translating the Greek translation into English. The former is part of the due diligence of understanding the meaning of the infallible Hebrew source. The latter is hardly different from Ruckmanism.

​@sincerelygideon Hardly, the LXX represents a text tradition at least as old, if not older than, the Masoretic Text. At a minimum, where the Hebrew behind it and the DSS agree, it deserves serious consideration. Even before the issue that inspired authors routinely quoted from the LXX against the proto-Masoretic. Especially in Hebrews. This is entirely distinct from even checking work against the Vulgate, as the 1611 did. Let alone Ruckmanism, which I heartily reject,

His quibble over the definition of LXX is quite a side-show, and is actually undermining to his position in a variety of ways. If the NT authors used a variety of Greek translations-and they differed from each other-and the inspiring Spirit was fine with that-what does that lead us to do today? Argue for a singular, monolithic Bible? It rather shows that God is comfortable-or at least understanding of-a variety of wordings of his Scriptures. Other KJV proponents have gone so far as to claim that there are no OT quotations at all in the New. This variety of wording does not bode well for an “every word” preservationist. Furthermore, if he insists we stop using the term “the LXX/Septuagint” because of variances, will he also support a removal of the term “the KJV” from our vocabularies as well? There’s variances of wordings in all the various editions. (Ironically, he gives an author from 1935 as the source of this “monolithic” approach to the LXX as an “it”. And yet the AV itself has a preface, where the translators (via Miles Smith) remind us “It is certain that the Septuagint was not completely sound and perfect. In many places it needed correction - and who was more qualified for this work than the apostles? Yet, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them to take what they found. (since it was, for the most part, true and sufficient) rather than to make a new translation… Now we answer our adversaries. We do not deny - in fact, we are firm and assert - that the very poorest translation of the Bible into English, produced by men of our profession [Protestants] (for we have not yet seen any of their [the Catholics] translations of the entire Bible), contains the word of God-no, is the word of God.” Seems like a monolithic reference to the LXX there. Furthermore, Riddle himself quotes Turretin in his lecture referring to it as “the Septuagint all the way back in the mid-1600’s. It appears that a monolithic approach to the LXX does predate 1935-by just a few years!

What is admitted here in this lecture-but not developed-is the reality that the NT authors used Scriptures of multiple sources, and in places where they render words differently, and at times--much differently- than the Hebrew MT. How is God ok with this? Can we be ok with Bibles with variances? Look no further than the AV. Riddle says “that is uh a very significant uh movement that's happened uh in recent days especially in the last uh 150 years or so there's been a movement toward justifying amending the Masoretic text because it was used by early Christians even Apostolic uh authors”. This movement of amending the Masoretic text has been going on much longer than recent days. Kethiv/Kere readings abound in the MT, and they are direct evidence of editing going on. The Masoretes themselves recorded 10 places they changed the text. Much more importantly however, the AV itself edits the Masoretic text in some readings. Four examples will follow:

Joshua 21:36-37. These verses are missing in the Masoretic text of the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525. LXX, Vulgate and Syriac include them. The parallel text in I Chronicles 6:63-64 includes them. The KJV translators edited there text here. In Jdg. 10:4 the AV edits the Masoretic Text. In order to avoid a nonsensical repetition, the KJV translators assumed the pointing to be in error on the Hebrew term for “donkeys” (2nd occurrence). The Hebrew consonants for “cities” and “donkeys” are identical, and they knew the Masoretes had erroneously pointed the vowels identically with the first occurrence meaning “donkeys” and “cities” as implied by what followed. This reading is confirmed by the LXX. Thus their harmonization here is context dependent. If the prior phrase were not there to indicate the difference, the term would have been only known as “donkeys”. In Amos 8:8 The MT reads “like the light,” whereas the King James Version, following some specific Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, Vulgate, Targums, and Syriac, read “like the River,” in harmony with the final phrase of the verse and with Amos 9:5. Seemingly the MT is missing the Hebrew letter “Yod” due to scribal omission. II Samuel 23:8 is harmonized with I Chronicles 11:11 via italics. Notice the Hebrew words ‎הֽוּא־עוֹרֵ֧ר (1 Chr. 11:11 WTT) and ‎ה֚וּא עֲדִינ֣וֹ (2 Sam. 23:8 WTT). What happens in II Samuel 23:8 is that the KJV translators take the Masoretic text as written to translate “He” and “Adino” and they they choose between Kethiv/Qere (Eznite) and then they insert italics based off of I Chronicles 11:11 WHICH TAKES THE SAME CONSONANTS of already translated word “Adino” but repoints them to say “He raised/lifted up”. Thus, they smooth out the Hebrew text issues by inserting content from I Chronicles. Furthermore, the “eznite” K/Q reading is swapped for “the spear” of I Chronicles 11. The Hebrew text as written has no verb in II Samuel 23:8. It seems clear that the I Chronicles 11 reading is superior, smooth, and sensible.

Regarding the LXX as “the Bible of the early church”-let’s pause and ask a simple question-how many believers read and/or spoke Hebrew in the 1st century? Few-especially non-Jewish believers. Did these believers have an OT? Yes or no. The fact that variances existed among documents does not prove that there was not “A Bible of the early church”. In fact, it was standardized enough that the Jews undertook 3 different revisions of it to try to lessen the Christological doctrines found therein. There’s a level of scholarly obfuscation going on that requires a good bit of careful history and logical perception to dig through everything. Notice his slight of hand regarding Apostolic citations of the OT. He reframes the variances in this manner: “sometimes we're simply seeing their Spirit-driven Apostolic writing of scripture”. No Dr. Riddle-this would be the “Spirit-driven Apostolic RE-WRITING of Scripture”. Is the Scripture changeable? In his explanation of the Acts 15 quote, Dr. Riddle suggests a “Spirit-inspired interpretation.” However, the lead in phrase says “ And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (Acts 15:15 KJV)”. Notice the lead-in says “the words of the prophets” and “it is written”. If James is changing terms and giving a new interpretation, doesn’t this mean James is leading apart from the words of the prophets with new terms? The whole force of the text is that the OT, as it stands, directly teaches this truth. Furthermore, Dr. Riddle side-steps the reality that the LXX was there and in use, and James was simply referencing it. The source of the term “Adam” (rather than the MT “Edom”) was not James himself, but rather the LXX translator(s) who went before him! Does Dr. Riddle point out that the verb has a difference-and when compared in Hebrew it boils down to one letter difference? No-he passes this by. In fact, the phrase in the MT, as it stands, has no bearing on Gentiles coming to Jesus, but rather speaks of the Jews possessing them! It is completely different in meaning. How can James declare on the authority of the prophets something that is different from what the prophets said?

Ultimately, Dr. Riddle needs to decide if the Masoretic text is perfect, unblemished, and needs no editing. For if it is pristine, the KJV erred when they edited it-in a variety of places. Thus, the KJV must now need editing. If the MT does need editing, then with what shall it be corrected? The LXX? Hebrew manuscripts? DSS? And to whom shall this honor be given? Jews alone? (Then he would need to sit and let the unbelievers do their work…)

Thanks for the encouragement. SDG! See you in Salisbury, Lord willing.

Blessings to the brethren in Belarus. May the Lord bless that great nation.