Providential Preservation of Scripture Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Providential Preservation of Scripture

Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Can even well-meaning and sincere Christians be guilty of Eisegesis?

Introduction

Bottom Line Up Front: Yes, even well-meaning people can and do commit the same interpretation mistakes they accuse of others. No they are not being deliberately hypocritical, malicious, or imposing double standards but many time we simply fall prey to this trap without knowing it. The motives and reasons may vary. The point is that it happens even by well-meaning people. Yes, even in the most charitable and loving tone possible: it still happens even by well-meaning people. 

  

But first we need a reminder of some simple definitions. Exegesis put simply is saying what the text says in its context (think: grammatical-historical, typology, etc…). On the other hand, eisegesis is reading into or importing our own ideas (even if good, sound, and conservative ideas) into the text of scripture. This is very close to the idea of application (or a more trendy title “relevance”) to the modern reader. Akin to these ideas or concepts is a presupposition, which a simple definition would be assuming something it taught but not actually proved (by exegesis) from the text. For example, some Christians practice presuppositional apologetics (certain ideas or truths are assumed true and not proven so). Or perhaps a bus ministry, VBS, Sunday School, visitation are “applications” of texts teaching evangelism or discipleship. In relation to Eisegesis, this series of articles will attempt to show the proof texts used to show God’s promise of scriptural preservation have not meant historically what well-meaning people today are trying to say they mean.

Our Example

We could use any number of proof texts such as Psalm 12, Ps 119, or 1 Pet 1. These are the standard texts used and we will get to each of them in time. However, our test case text under discussion is the Gospel of Matthew 5:17-20. Here’s the simple issue: Is Jesus teaching the ongoing authority of the Old Testament text or is he teaching a promised preservation of the Hebrew text (which is how one might see a “proof text” understanding of scriptural preservation)? Again, remember the problem is not has God’s word been preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or only in one Greek manuscript but does the Bible itself anywhere actually teach God would preserve the text of scripture. Again, our thesis as stated above, can and do even well-meaning people fall prey to the problem of eisegesis? In full context our test case reads as follows,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20, English Standard Version)

Comments

First, the English gloss “to abolish” (both ESV, NASB; "destroy" KJV) translates the same Greek term both times it appears here. This underlying Greek term occurs 17 times in the NT and there’s nothing cryptic in a lexicon, dictionary, or even a NT word study of the term.  So whatever “the Law or the Prophets” means, Christ explicitly states he did not come “to abolish” them but in contrast “to fulfill” them (all three ESV, NASB, and KJV). If the “the Law or the Prophets” refers to the entirety of the Old Testament then Christ did not come “to abolish” the Old Testament but “to fulfill” them. I think we can safely note neither Christ or any of the apostles took this to mean we shouldn’t quote, memorize, or preach from the OT. The NT gives overwhelming evidence to all these categories in practice. 

Before moving on the to the explanatory clause “for” in the follow verse (v. 18) two additional comments are needed based on the context of the gospel of Matthew which should help to shed light on understanding the comments Jesus makes. First, the verb “to fulfill” occurs 86 times in the New Testament, 16 times of which occur in Matthew in reference to “fulfilling” Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah (himself). This helps us to see how Christ is using the term in this direct context and even in the previous chapters of Matthew. Second, is in relation to term “authority” occurring 102 times in the New Testament, 9 times of which also occur in Matthew. Interestingly, the gospel of Matthew by the author’s design rotates between Narrative and Discourse sections (think: Olivet Discourse or Sermon on the Mount). The sermon on the Mount (ch. 5-7) when coming to a conclusion receives the testimony that Jesus taught as one having “authority” (Mt 7:29). The remaining three gospels (Mark, Luke, and John) repeat the same term “authority” in relation to the teaching, preaching, and miracles of Jesus. This same authority is displayed throughout the gospel of Matthew in his teaching, healing the sick, and even casting out demons. Ultimately (in this same gospel in Ch. 28), Jesus will declare to have been given “all authority” over all creation (heaven and earth). I would suggest this concept of authority is essential to understanding the meaning of Christ’s words in our context.

On to our explanatory clause introduced by the preposition “for.” This text provides an explanation for Christ coming “to fulfill” and not “to abolish” the Old Testament (especially as relating to prophecy concerning himself. Matthew repeated uses this idea throughout his book for fulfilled prophecy in the Messiah. This “authority” of the Old Testament extends even to the smallest Hebrew letter or the smallest part of a Hebrew letter. This verse also contains another repeating verb “to pass away” (ESV, NASB; "pass from" KJV). There will be a point in time when “the heavens and earth” will pass away. The explanation then relates to when Hebrew letter references will “pass away.” Ultimately, again the end of the verse gives us a timing reference “until all is accomplished.” This extends the ongoing authority of the Old Testament, not just to include prophecies of Christ’s first coming (the incarnation) but also to his future return (second coming). Just a side note, I would assume if you see preservation of the text in this verse you must also see in the context “until all is accomplished” an end to textual preservation (both kept miraculously and ending miraculously).

So if I’m right this simple straight forward reading of the text is concerned with Christ’s declaration of the ongoing authority of the Old Testament with special focus on all the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself (from his incarnation to his second coming). This is how Matthew uses the OT and the formula “to fulfill.” He takes this ongoing “authority” seriously because to not teach them or to relax their ongoing authority has serious consequences. Basically your referred to as the “least in the kingdom of God.”

Corroborating Sources

In time we will consult commentaries, theological journals, historical creeds and confessions, systematic theologies, and even well-thought ordination statements. However here we will consult some common study Bibles confirm my interpretation or do they see a doctrine of scriptural preservation taught from this text? This comparable source is something that you might have readily available. Consider a sampling of them (odds are you already own some of them). Please note that not one of these top-level carefully prepared study Bibles uses this text to teach the modern “proof text” position for scripture’s promised preservation. On the contrary, five say the same things in regards to the ongoing authority of the Old Testament (bold type is mine for emphasis). Two others point to issues of obedience and righteousness.

“Here Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle.” (MacArthur Study Bible, p.1400).

“Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time, even down to the smallest components of the written text…the iota…and the dot…. The OT remains an authoritative compendium of divine testimony and teaching.” (ESV Study Bible, p. 1828)

“The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520)

“Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He had said in His Word without fail.” (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363)

“Jesus does not alter, replace, or nullify the former commands; rather, He establishes their true intent and purpose in His teaching and accomplishes them in His obedient life.” (The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version, p. 1368)

“Jesus is not speaking against observing all the requirements of the law … Jesus repudiates the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law.” (Zondervan Study Bible KJV Edition, p. 1445)

"Even the letters are divinely inspired, in the original manuscripts." (Henry Morris Study Bible, KJV Edition, p. 1394)

               So there you go. I’ve provide both premillennial and Amillennial source. Both in agreement. I’ve also provide both source from both side of the baptism view. Regardless of author, published, denominational affiliation, or theological grid, they nearly line up on the interpretation. Please note, none of them see a scriptural preservation of the text, either providentially or miraculously. Perhaps there is a mass conspiracy or maybe the text does not actual says what people want to see.  This is called "Eisegesis." 

Conclusion

Again the concern is not whether the scriptures have been preserved for thousands of years (which is a historical fact), but is it even possible for well-meaning Christians to read this theological concept into (eisegesis) a scriptural text?  Simply go to any museum in the US, France, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom (assuming they contain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or any old copy of the Scriptures). I would suggest church history shows God has providentially preserved his word in the totality of available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You can personally see Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which have preserved God’s word if you’re willing to make the trip. Skip the plane ticket. Go to your book shelf or night stand and pick up a copy of the scriptures in English (my own mother tongue). Or read it perhaps in French, Spanish, Italian or any other spoken tongue in 2020.

Future articles will simply increase the evidence defending the historic Christian position. We can appeal to commentaries, ordination doctrinal statements, theological journal articles, historical Christian confessions and creeds, and even reputable systematic theology textbooks. I think you’ll see an overwhelming amount of conservative scholarly and historical evidence all pointing in the same direction.  Scripture has been providentially preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and modern languages too.   

Again, at least in the name of being charitable, if you want to use Matthew 5 for an authoritative proof-text then go for it. People use proof texts all the time, whether the text actually says what they want it to is another issue. Just remember the next time you are tempted to accuse someone of eisegesis to make sure to take a long look in the mirror. So to repeat my opening concern, “Do well-meaning people repeat the problem of eisegesis in scriptural interpretation?” I suggest based on the way Mt 5 is used (even by well-meaning people) the ongoing answer has to be yes.

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers (Part Two)

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers 

(Part Two)

For the last two sessions I've covered principles for disagreeing with other Christians.  They are not always perfected by myself or anyone else.  But in general they are very helpful and serve as a foundation for how to disagree (yes, even with other believers).  The first was a series of principles from Tim Keller's book Center Church. Today is part two of twelve principles found in a book titled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. This post will cover the remaining six principles (Principles 7-12).  Some of these thoughts are initial and definitely not final but they are sort of thoughts in progress. 

7. Your freedom to eat meat is correct, but don't let your freedom destroy the faith of a weak brother or sister (Rom 14:13-15).

     A. Do I realize my theological or application position is correct but that it will effect others?
     B. I must personally not let my liberty on the text and translation issue harm other believers. In applying this to the text and translation issue (for which I think it probably doesn't) but does this imply that a weak believer on this point has added to or made part of orthodox Christian belief and practice an English translation of the scriptures? Does this also imply that all other Christians using any other English translation (not to forget Italian, French, or Spanish to name a few) are causing them to be destroyed?
     C. In what practical ways can I personally avoid ruining the faith of other genuine believers (especially as it applies to the text and translation issue)?
     D. How do I determine who is being schismatic, overbearing, or is simply teaching false views on the text and translation issue?

8. Disagreements about eating and drinking are not important in the kingdom of God; building each other up in righteousness, peace, and joy is the important thing (Rom 14:16-21).

     A. Is my position on the text and translation issue on the same level as eating and drinking?
     B. Can I build up other Christians using multiple translations? Consider some sub-points here:
          First, must building up believers be done in the context of a local church?
          Second, can it be done online or in another source of media?
     C. Can I build up other Christians within the constraints of their conscience on this issue?
     D. Am I willing to restrain my freedoms to build up other believers?

9. If you have freedom, don't flaunt it; if you are strict, don't expect others to be strict like you  (Rom 14:22).
     A. How should we define or describe flaunting? Is it even remotely fair to place on the same level one's liberty in music, alcohol, or smoking and reading an understandable English translation?
     B. Is trying to teach on this issue to be described as flaunting a freedom?
     C. On the other hand, if some people can only or will only (for whatever reason) use and/or endorse only one English translation, is it fair for them to expect all other to agree with them?  Consider some sub-points on this one:
          First, must an institution of higher learning (college, seminary) require all students to use the same English translation?
          Second, must a high school/middle school require the same standard?
          Third, should local churches do likewise for teaching and preaching?

10. A person who lives according to their conscience is blessed (Rom 14:22-23).

     A. If blessing comes from a clear conscience, should not we try to teach our conscience according to history, scripture, and right reasoning?
     B. Obviously we don't want people to violate their conscience. But consider, at what point is a refusal to even try to educate ones's conscience a stubborn attachment to traditions?
     C. At what point does a person's conscience overly bind themselves or others to the point where this new defined obedience standard is not required to achieve God's blessing on their life?

11. We must follow the example of Christ, who put others first (Rom 15:1-6).

     A. In what ways can Christ be shown towards those who clearly are in false teaching in this area?
     B. In what ways can Christ-like edification occur when only one English translation is allowed?
     C. In what ways did Christ practice a tolerance for and the same time liberty of OT quotation from both LXX and Masoretic text (one of which would directly offend the audience)?
     D. Is the text and translation issue truly a non-essential? Who determines whether it is a non-essential?
     E. Are their limits that even Christ taught and practiced toward those who disagreed with his practice of the OT? Did it ever reach a conscience issue level?

12. We bring glory to God when we welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us (Rom 15:7).

     A. Again, the parallel between days and meats and the text and translation issue might be a little strained here. If concepts or doctrines such as revelation, inspiration, preservation, or the like are actual doctrinal categories then can there really and truly be doctrinal liberty here? Is this really on the same level as things such as blue jeans, television shows, or reading Harry Potter? Can we agree to disagree on the Trinity or atonement? See the difference.
     B. Is this a legitimate application to a conscience issue? Can God truly be glorified if it is false teaching and not just a liberty or non-essential?

Well this article ends here.  I hope these three articles on disagreeing with other believers has been benificial. In the end, it is Christ that we must preach to a lost and dying world. It is only in him where we have eternal life. Preach from your Bible. Any Bible. Any translation (even the bad ones are still Bible--if you disagree then you just missed the value of these twelve points). Just preach and teach Christ.
 
Read your Bible. Enjoy. Comment as needed.

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.