Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to the One English Translation? (My Thoughts)

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to a One English Translation Position? (My Thoughts Only)

What actual ingredients would be necessary to free a person's conscience from believing only one English translation is appropriate?  Or to believe God has only preserved his word (providentially) in one English translation (or for that matter in only one Greek text)?  What steps are needed to help members of a local church to reach this ability?  This assumes that this position is even necessary or desirable.  Please remember this implies two things: one, they are not currently violating their conscience in using a different English translation; and two, the conscience can be taught, shaped, and re-calibrated via the scriptures.  

First, it begins with local church leadership.  The one pastor or lay-elders (whatever the polity), need to be involved proactively.  If your preaching displays that the text doesn't matter then don't expect the congregation to think otherwise.  If you actually preach and teach as though the text or underlying Hebrew and/or Greek matter, then perhaps your congregation will be more on board (but this is no guarantee).  Does the leadership actually teach the people?  Do they just throw a book at them to read?  Worst case scenario, the pastor wants to push ahead faster than the congregation.  Don't fall backwards if there is a church split (pushing too fast).  If people don't want to follow where you (alone) want to go, maybe you should slow down or rethink that particular route.  It would be much better to take things slower than to speed up and hit a wall.

Second, it begins with believers who desire to know the historic truth on the Bible translation position.  If they are content not knowing and remaining in that condition, it makes things very hard.  However, if the congregation is actually taught (through painstaking time and effort) to read and study the scriptures for themselves, this does present a better working environment.  It must be said that church attendance is not always a guarantee of Christian maturity (but you just got to wonder when some people never show up Sunday evening or Wednesday night).

Third, our standard for determining truth is not subjective experience.  It is the scriptures alone.  In God's providence certain English translations have been especially used of God in Christian circles.  From a sales perspective, certain translations have far outsold the others?  Some have even taken on their own distinct theological flavor (especially depending on who endorses them).    Remember not to confuse the theology or life-styles choices (evangelism, convictions, etc...) of the individual with the actual objective teachings of scripture.

Again these are just thoughts I have collected and experienced having lived in six different states within a multitude of different churches.  This also comes with graduate level seminary degrees from two different seminaries within fundamental Christian circles.  And yes there will always be overlapping agreements and alternative disagreements between schools.  Again I say this only because I've seen it really work well and I also have seen it turn our very ugly.  I've seen where people will not study, learn and grow.  I've also seen the reverse where people do grow and mature in their understanding of the historical position on the translation issue.  Just to be fair, even mature Christians will disagree on this issue.

As always, comments encouraged.

Voices from history on the Translation issue, 

(1910) "Inspiration is affirmed, of course, only of the original documents, now no longer extant.  Many mistakes may have been made by copyists, and some interpolations by officious scribes and translators are fallible.  It is the part of reverent criticism to seek, by careful examination and comparison of all existing documents, to detect errors and restore as far as possible the Scriptures in their original purity" (A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures, p. 21; Taken from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

(1910) "One evening he remarked that no one claimed verbal inspiration for the English Bible-although that was remarkably accurate-but only for the text of the original writings.  "Then," exclaimed a gentleman rising in the front seat, "if we cannot read the original we might as well have no inspired Bible at all."  "Well," replied the lecturer quickly, "my daughter, who is a missionary in Japan, recently sent me a photography of her child whom I have never seen.  No doubt it is not a perfect likeness.  Do you suppose that I said, as I looked upon it, that is not the original and therefore I might as well have no grandchildren at all?" (Arthur T. Pierson: A Biography; By Delaven Leonard Pierson, p. 284; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist, Greenville, SC). 

Can an overemphasis on Social Justice Issues Rob us Of Gospel-Centered Preaching?

Can an overemphasis on Social Justice Issues Rob us Of 

Gospel-Centered Biblical Preaching?

(Or is it possible that this is just another either/or fallacy).

I would suggest in the bigger picture of Christianity, local churches, denominations, and mission boards have both formed and divided over these issues.  I simple look at church history proves this point.  To deny denominations have split of slavery or the ordination of women would a denial of American history.  For evidence, compare the Southern Baptist Convention to the Northern Baptist Convention.  Or compare the Southern Baptist Convention to the Cooperative Baptist Convention.  All Baptists, have dramatically different views in regard to social justice issues (and I would suggest even in the content of the gospel).  This latter part is of greater (and eternal) concern.  

It would be rather naive to claim there is a simple answer to this dilemma.  It would be equally improper to claim we have a more robust and mature Christianity simply because our own particular church(s) claim(s) to be "balanced" on this issue.  No doubt, the balanced position finds a way to paint everyone else as an extreme.  Anyway on to our Biblical text.

For this idea (and certainly not the only location), I'll turn to Luke 10:38-42.  I came across this text yet again in my M'Cheyne Bible reading plan (which hits this verse twice each calendar year and which I highly recommend):

"38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

This may be a huge "misapplication" but many study notes say otherwise.  Is it possible to get so caught up in serving and focusing on social justice issues that the gospel gets second place?  Is it possible to think you are doing all sorts of things with the motive of "love" that gospel preaching and evangelism never actually happens?  Do we get so caught up in "doing" that we start redefining key doctrinal terms such as: mercy, grace, or justification?

Is it possible to make this error in a food pantry?  A soup kitchen? Homeless shelter?  These ideas may be good in an of themselves but if the gospel is never preached, then what?  Well fed, well rested unbelievers.  Is there more that local churches could do to reach out to a dying world around them?  Yes, of course (its not the governments job).  

What then is evangelism?  What is an actual gospel presentation?  Is it possible that the above mentioned social justice issues can be defended more with Biblical pragmatism when mixed with the gospel?  Foreign mission?  Build me a well and I listen to your story.  Give me food and I'll believe in your God.  I don't say these as straw men.  This is real-world modern day mission board philosophy.  Put simply: if it works, then it must be okay if allows for a gospel presentation.  As to when in church history this means of evangelism has become acceptable is another question you must answer. 

The study notes go straight to the point, "Martha's problem was not that she was serving: it was that she was distracted by 'much serving' (v. 40).  It is not only bad things that keep us from true communion with Christ; it is often an excessive preoccupation, anxiety, and distraction with good things" (The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, p. 1476).

On the other hand, is possible that Martha was not focused on worship but too fixated on the details, "Martha was evidently fussing about with details that were unnecessarily elaborate" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1502).


Ryrie as well seems to catch this misplaced emphasis, "One simple dish for the meal is all that is necessary, rather than the elaborate preparations Martha had made" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1644).


We could add plenty more but as you can see we can get so preoccupied with service (perhaps even in the name of being self-less or hospitable), that we can completely miss the bigger picture.  Here I would suggest we can miss correct worship practices or even worse completely skew a right presentation of the gospel message.  So is this an either/or fallacy?  They certainly are not diametrically opposed to each other.  But it seems clear we can get caught up in service (or doing things in the name of "ministry") that the gospel message never actually happens.


Thoughts of course.  Comments encouraged (as always).

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.

The English KJV 1611 Only Position is a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

The One English KJV 1611 Only Position is Really a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three     Series Part Four 

As strange as it may sound.  After a thorough reading of One English Translation Only (KJV1611) literature and websites, it is clear that authority is a major concern of the advocates of this position.  For example, I went through one text supporting their position which only contained about ten chapters but it contained over 100 references to authority. Not just authority in general but where to find it.  They don't always agree but I think I can clearly extract several common threads.  Authority and where it is found is a key issue.  Let's be clear: even though many of their motives may be different, and no doubt are different, the product is the same.  But just to be clear, all my verse, chapter and book memorizing still comes from the KJV.  Not for academic reasons but for the churches we seem to attend.  Yes, we've had to deal with our children quoting other English versions for their kids clubs.  This is an issue, howbeit a local church issue.

First, they believe (whether correct or not is another issue) that God has promised to providentially preserve his word and they alone in history know where it is.  It just happens to be the primary Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation (the KJV).  Now to be fair, many in fundamentalism (many of whom I know personally) are translating the Scriptures into modern (non-English spoken languages).  So its okay to translate the Greek and Hebrew into some tribal dialect just not into modern English?  I would suggest to my KJV only advocates that they should learn from this practice.  Just like the KJV translators tried to put the scriptures into the language of the people.  Not just another edition with archaic words defined in the margins.  They were driven to make good translations better and more readable.

Second, this claim of authoritatively knowing God's chosen means of preservation is also expanded upon through employing the systematic theology category of providence.  As they teach, God in his providence, only preserved his word in one particular Greek text (and not in any other text).  Stephanus? Beza? TR?  Just to be clear, according to their position, providence cannot (is not allowed to) extend to over 5000 available manuscripts in vast agreement (this is simply dismissed as history not providence).  Providence is only allowed (contrary to all history) to cover the texts underlying the one English only position.  Is there any text in scriptures that states God chose to use a Traditional text or Received Text?  No.  There is only a default defense of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation position. This is not a straw man.  This is a simple default position.  They believe in only using one English translation.  Therefore, they will vehemently defend what underlies it and attack all other positions unceasingly (including personal and ecclesiastical separation, an issue which also needs to be addressed).   

Third, as just noted, any and all positions on other Greek and Hebrews texts (including the Septuagint "LXX") are a threat to their chosen position.  They alone believe they have this authoritative truth preserved in the manuscripts which coincidentally are the basis for a One primary English Translation position.  To disagree with their position is to disagree with how they understand God's claims of preserving his word.  This line of thinking only perpetuates itself if people in churches remain uneducated on the historic position on this issue.  This is only enforced by leadership who never address the issue or only encourage this view of the scriptures.  Then what is needed is information to free a bound conscience (this we will address in a future article).

Fourth, I believe another reason these individuals can never acknowledge the existence and authority of the Septuagint is the Apocrypha.  Not to mention the original one English translation they hold to originally contained the Apocrypha (which is inconsistent with their own 1611 position).  What does this mean?  They are so adamant against the inclusion of the Apocrypha (and rightly so).  The London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession held to this position.  Nothing new here.  My concern is that in their desire to avoid this document they refuse to accept the historical reality of the Septuagint.  Take your pick, this is a simple throwing out the baby with the bath water or guilt by association (just don't extend it to the original KJV).

Finally, we should take care in placing all adherents of a one English Translation into the same box together.  This is just a reminder from their own literature.  They disagree among themselves as to the authority of an English translation.  They disagree among themselves concerning comparisons with Greek and Hebrew texts, or even with other English translations.  Don't forget there are even groups who would want to correct original manuscripts or call it sin to use any other version.  So lets not lump them all together.  Many fundamentalist colleges and seminaries still have the KJV as their official public position for ministry (preaching and teaching).

Questions to Ponder:
1) Did God chose the English language to providentially preserve his word?  The way the one English translation position is defended it is really hard to avoid this conclusion.  If not, how about the underlying original language text (question two)?

2) Did God chose to providentially preserve only the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their one English translation only position?  If yes, I would extend the question: Are you then willing to create an English translation (today) from these texts?  If your answer is "no," then go back to previous question.  

Did you just default to an English KJV 1611 only position?
  
Really these questions drive at the heart of this issue.  They truly believe authority is only found in their one English translation.  This one source of authority is why they can never agree to the production of a modern translation (even from the Hebrew and Greek texts) which they alone believe God used to preserve his word.

Instead of a new translation.  They will produce dictionaries for the hundreds of archaic and outdated terms.  (I have one of these dictionaries).  They will produce English Bibles with all the outdated terms defined for the reader.  I think they may be trying to make a 400 year old English translation readable for modern Christians instead of a modern translation for modern Christians.  Again, we still need to address conscience related issues in  a future article.

Historical quotes on the translation issue,

"Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection.  Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit.  Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of encouragement." (Andrew Fuller, "Works," vol. III, p. 810; Borrowed from Trust Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word.  So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek.  We have reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate." 
(J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 20; Again borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Thoughts?  Comments as always encouraged.

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew Text? History says "No."

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew text?

A quick read over historical documents shows us that Christian past did teach that God would preserve his word through the generations (See LBC and WCF).  Question: why all of a sudden has God decided (according to some in very recent history) to only preserve his word in one English translation?  Or to be fair and a little more broad (to encompass the more academics): why all of a sudden has God decided to only preserve his word in the Greek and Hebrew texts which coincidentally (or providentially) are the primary texts used for translating the KJV?

One such Biblical text used by modern KJV advocates (apart from several others) is Psalm 12.  The important text for our discussion is verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  This sound really compelling that God is promising to preserve the scriptures (his word) throughout history. Before diving into the context note two things that you will never find.  First, no reference to the means of preservation (neither in Hebrew nor English).  Second, there is no reference to an English translation as the only means of God preserving scripture (for at least my predominate English speaking country).  See the problem already for Spanish, French, or Italian (not to mentions hundreds of tribal dialects)?  Again, problem not helped just going back a step to a Hebrew text.

Anyway based on the actual context of Psalm 12, who or what is preserved?  Did David claim God would preserve people or a text of scripture?  Does quoting Hebrew grammar change the interpretation at all?  Let's start with the context of the Psalm.  The Psalm divided nicely into two sections: vv. 1-4, 5-8.  The first section tells us the verbal assaults that God's people receive from the world.  God's people are defined as "the godly man" and "the faithful" (v. 1).  But who are the verbally attacked?  Verse one tells us "the children of men" (v. 1) and "the wicked" (v. 8).  We know its verbal attacks because verse two addresses it with terms "they speak vanity" "with flattering lips" and "they speak."  So three times the idea or image of a verbal attack is identified. The believer's petition is that these verbal attackers would be removed "cut off" (v. 3).

What is God's response?  In verse five, he promised to "set him in safety."  Obviously the "him" is the godly people from verse one.  They are distinguished from the attackers, "him that puffeth at him."  Now we come to verse six?  What is God promising?  Is he identifying the character of scripture in general?  Is this what the context requires or implies?  Why insert this topic here?  Is it not possible that God is referring to his promises made to the godly in verse five "to set him in safety," to protect and preserve him?  

Now we come to the debated text (v. 7).  Is God promising to "keep" and "preserve" the actual words of verses 5-6?  Perhaps even the Hebrew text?  How is this helpful?  When believers are in the middle of trials from the world and unbelievers "the children of men," how is it helpful for God to say, "Don't worry I am promising to providentially preserve my Hebrew scriptures"?  Is that really encouraging counsel?  I don't have any worries when attacked by the world because God promised to providentially preserve the Hebrew manuscripts.  Please take note: this is not the same as God making promises in scripture to comfort his people in times of trial. 

So what actually would be helpful counsel from God?  I will "keep" and "preserve" you!  I will protect my people.  In fact he does promise to protect them (the people) from the world around them "from this generation" (v. 7).  In the very next verse he reminds them who is attacking them, who it is that is "this generation," it is "the wicked" and "the vilest men" (v. 8).  That is helpful counsel and a response to prayer "Help. LORD!" (v. 1).

So how do English translations after the KJV 1611 handle this verse from the same Hebrew text.  So whatever they do you can't use a TR argument against them (Greek NT).  Let's see:

"You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever." (NKJV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever." (ESV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever." (NASB)

So what caused several later translations to use personal pronouns making it clear that God was promising to protect and preserve his people not a Hebrew text of scripture (or a later English translation)?  From here I'll provide lines of evidence.  First, technical and second a listing of Study Bibles and commentaries who agree with this interpretation of preserving God's people not a text.

First, and this will sound technical, 

"The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender." (NET Bible, Translation notes, 12:7).

" The suffix ēm in v. 8a refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6" (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 5, p. 122).

"The two verbs of this verse in MT have 3 pers. pl. and 3 pers sing. suffixes respectively. The translation above assumes 1 pers pl. suffixes on both verbs, for which there is good support in the Heb. MSS (De-Rossi, IV, 6) and the versions (cf. G and Vg)." (Peter Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary, Vo. 19., p. 137).

So to construct any argument to say the Hebrew text references God's word just doesn't stand up to exegetical scrutiny.   

Second, commentary from Study Bibles and commentaries,

"The people that God assuredly will preserve." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 770).

"It seems best to take them as the poor and needy (v. 5) and the godly (v. 1).  Their disappearance was not absolute." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 953).

"The ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 128).

"Regardless of the circumstances of life, God's children are assured of the special protection of their heavenly Father. . . He keeps them safe from the wicked" (VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 808).

"He will preserve 'them' (lit. "him"), the individual sufferer, from the attacks of the wicked in David's own time." (Peter, Steveson.  Psalms. BJU Press, Greenville, 2007).

How about an older one from the 1700s,
"thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants" "thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world" (George Horne, Commentary on the Psalms, p. 70).

So we see here that Psalm 12 does not aid the KJV 1611 position.  God did not promise here to preserve a particular Hebrew text.  Apart from reading this idea into the text, this is just not taught here.  He also did not promise to preserve a particular English translation (which is also completely contradictory to the translator's of the KJV).  He promised to protect his people from an evil world around them.  This is comfort and encouragement.  

Quotes from history,

"In a letter to a fried she wrote, As to 1 Corinthians ix.27, why did you not see that the Greek [adokimos] is literally and clearly "not approved," being simply the negative of [dokimos].  You cannot read the Greek word otherwise; and how it came to be translated "castaway" I can't imagine." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, p. 232; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

". . . Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach.  It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text. . . . There are, however many places in which the Authorized Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. . . . in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Parallel New Testament: Greek and English, pp. xxiv-xxv; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Educated yourself on this issue.  As always comments encouraged.

The Value of Septuagint Quotations in the NT in discussing the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Septuagint Quotations in New Testament and the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three  

One of the tenants of the KJV English Translation only position is the non-existence of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint "LXX").  This line of defense is focused toward KJV only advocates who at least attempt an academic position based on the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.  At face value this might not make sense to the normal reader.  Here's the issue many (if not most) of the KJV only adherents believe that God providentially preserved the Hebrew manuscripts underlying the Old Testament.  It is this OT text that the NT writers and speakers quote.  This includes writers such as the Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc....  This would also extend to include Christ's own quotation of the OT.  

Of course, it goes without saying the KJV English only position has no value for the underlying Hebrew and Greek text and won't be bothered by this position anyway.  Their position is an English text only position.  This position is even farther from the historic position of Christianity for both inspiration and preservation.  This position seems to foster a following in churches where academics are discouraged and local church pastors just don't address this issue (exegetically or historically). 

Just by way of reminder many of the KJV only advocates who actually use the Greek and Hebrew texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  It must be said (to be academically honest) not all adherents who believe God preserved the underlying Traditional Greek Texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  For example, the very study Bible I use every day for reading, study and memorizing was published by a company that is strongly KJV in their position (both underlying Greek and Hebrew texts also).  At the same time they acknowledge the existence of the LXX and their notes on occasion point out the fact that the NT verses are quoting from the Septuagint and not the underlying Hebrew text.  So this is obviously something they are not ashamed of or threatened by in being academically honest.

So let's begin with some examples.  Just for sake of time (don't forget there are roughly 350 OT quotations) in the NT, we'll limit our discussion to the epistle of Romans.  But to be fair this same process could be repeated in any of the NT gospels or epistles quoting from the LXX.  If I counted correctly (you're welcome to count on your own), Romans contains 63 OT quotations (22 from the LXX, and 41 from the Masoretic text).  In all the NT, the LXX only makes up for about 20% of the quotations.  So its certainly not the normal mode of operation when scripture was penned.

So what evidence do we look for to determine this quotation source?  Well, the verse quoted may contain words only found in the LXX (not in the Hebrew text).  This position could also be reversed, the Hebrew text might have a wording which the LXX does not contain.  Second, the NT quotation might be verbatim word order for the LXX (this as well could be said for verbatim quotes from the Hebrew text).  

Let's take some examples.

Romans 1:17 quotes from the Hebrew, "the just shall live by his faith."  As far as I can tell, the Hebrew text in Habakkuk 2:4 uses a preposition translated with the English gloss "by" that more correctly reflects the text quoted in Romans 1:17.  Here for example the Hebrew text best represents the preposition, whereas the LXX does not.

Romans 2:24 quotes from the LXX, "for the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles."  This comes from Isaiah 52:5.  If you will note (even in your English KJV text) the NT prepositional phrase, "among the Gentiles" does not appear.  The LXX contains this wording and the Hebrew text does not.  So how could Paul quote from the Hebrew text that did not exist?  Obvious, he quoted from the LXX.

How about some simple examples.  Many times the NT quotes the LXX verbatim.  This should make it simple to recognize.

Consider Romans 3:13b, "the poison of asps is under their lips."  This is quoted from Psalm 140:3.  The LXX reflects this exact Greek sentence verbatim.  

NT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·)

OT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν)

Or another from Romans 3:14, "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."  This is quoted from Psalm 10:7 and is another verbatim example.

What about a more complicated example in quotation?  Romans 9:29, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."  Take note of the three terms: Sabaoth, Sodom, and Gomorrha.  This is an example where the Hebrew is transliterated into Greek "Sabaoth" and is quoted by the NT as such.  Similar idea with Gomorrha and Sodoma, the terms are transposed.  Easy to see how the exact Greek wording is maintained.

Lastly, (but certainly not the last of the NT evidence), one of my favorite LXX quotations.  See Romans 10:16, "Lord, who hath believed our report?"  Compare this with your English KJV, "Who hath believed our report?"  OT is Isa 53:1 translated from the Hebrew text.  Notice any difference?  So what one word is different?  Lord.  Yes, the LXX contains the reference to God and the Hebrew text does not.  Can you image if this were reversed as often used by English KJV advocates.  Usually sounds something like, "They took Jesus out of the Bible!"  This is a simple textual issue.  The NT writer quoted the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

We could quote more  but this should be sufficient.  The rest you can compare on your own. 
So this may not cancel out every claim of KJV only advocates but it should help show some of the faulty reasoning involved.  First, the KJV writers were not KJV only see previous article).  Second, one major premise of many KJV advocates belief in textual preservation is faulty.  Again a simple effort put forth to educate yourself goes along way in refuting error in many local churches. 

More to come.  As always, comments encouraged.

Quotes from Church History on the Translation issue:

"We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing.  But there is not a single doctrine of Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted." (J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 29; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"It was at her study table that she read her Bible by seven o'clock in the summer and eight o'clock in winter; her Hebrew Bible, Greek Testament, and lexicons being at hand." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, by Marie Havergal, p. 259; again today borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The KJV Translators Preface: The KJV 1611 One English Only Position Continued

The KJV 1611 Translators Preface

Series Part Two          Series Part One

This one is rather interesting.  Much damage has been done by Bible publishers for not including this translators preface in their English translations.  I highly recommend a Cambridge edition that includes the translator's preface.  You can google it if needed to read a copy.  It is rather interesting for modern users of an English translation to take a position on this particular English translation which even the translators themselves did not hold to.  I challenge anyone to read a modern copy of the translator's preface.  The simple process of educating yourself on what they actually taught and practiced should bear insightful.

So what exactly was the position of the translators of the KJV? Since most people will never purchase a KJV containing the original Translators preface I will list out by category pertinent categories and quotations take from the original preface.  Again, you can find a simple free copy on www.google.com and read it for yourself (in its entirety).  

Since multiple English translations already existed, what did they think of producing new translations,

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

What did the translators believe about multiple Bible translations in English (or any other language), 

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

What did the translators believe about word for word translations and modern translations,

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..." 

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." 

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." 

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way."

What did the translators believe about English translations without errors or English translations that are beyond the reach of correction,

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others."

Finally, what did the translators believe about the need to have English translations in the modern tongue and vocabulary of the people, not in an archaic language from the past,

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed."

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

Quotes from History on Translations,

"The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical...no translation can possibly express all the matter of the holy originalls, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue."
(The Works of John Smyth, fellow of Christ's College, ed. W.T. Whitley, vol. I, pp. 279-280; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals.  To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, ... much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself "
(Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, in Works of John Owns, vol. XVI, p. 357; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

So as you can tell a modern movement that claims God chose both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts was not held by the translators themselves.  In addition, claiming that God will only use (or has only chosen or blessed) one English translation is not correct now nor was it believed by the translators of the King James Version.

We must still address where doctrine, history, and charity meet.
Read. Be educated.  Comments as always encouraged.