THE SEPTUAGINT

(LXX)
THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS
IS NOT FOUND IN THE SEPTUAGINT

by
H. D. Williams, M.D., Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
I. A PAGE FROM ORIGENS HEXAPLA
II. THE INTRODUCTION
III. AN AGENDA
IV. THE IMAGINARY SEPTUAGINT
V. THE CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT
VI. THE IMAGINARY SEPTUAGINT USED FOR RECONSTRUCTION
VII. DUPLICITY
VIII. WHOSE DICTIONARY AND WORDS CAN WE TRUST?
IX. WHICH WORDS ARE INSPIRED?
X. THE RECEIVED GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS SET ASIDE
XI. THE DEBUNKED CANONS OF MODERNISTIC TEXTUAL CRITICS
XII. DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES QUOTE THE SEPTUAGINT?
XIII. WHAT IS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?
 XIV. THE AGENDA CONCLUDED
XV. THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS
XVI. THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS
XVII. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX I. COMPILATION OF DR. D.A. WAITES STATEMENTS
APPENDIX II. EXAMPLE FOR UNDERSTANDING GODS WORDS
APPENDIX III. LEGO PICTURES

Abbreviations
A = Codex Alexandrinus
A.D. = Anno Dei
Apographs = copies of the original manuscripts
Autographs = original manuscripts
B = Codex Vaticanus
B.C. = Before Christ
ca. = circa
Canon = In ecclesiastical affairs, a law, or rule of doctrine or discipline, enacted by a
council and confirmed by the sovereign; a decision of matters in religion, or a
regulation of policy or discipline, by a general or provincial council. Way of Life
Encyclopedia
D.D.S. = Dead Sea Scrolls
e.g. = Latin, exempli gratia = for example
etc. = Latin et cetera = and so forth
GTO = Greek Text of Origen
Hellenistic = Pertaining to the Hellenists. The Hellenistic language was the Greek spo-
ken or used by the Jews who lived in Egypt and other countries, where the Greek
language prevailed.
Hexapla = Hex'aplar, a. Gr. six, and to unfold. Sextuple; containing six columns; from
Hexapla, the work of Origen, or an edition of the Bible, containing the original
Hebrew, and several Greek versions.
i.e. = Latin, id est = "that is"
ibid = Latin, ibidem = in the same place
Inerrant = containing no mistakes
ISBE = International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
KJB = King James Bible
Lectionaries = a book containing portions of Scripture
Lego = small colored blocks of various sizes used for construction
Letter = Letter of Aristeas
LXX = Septuagint
MSS = manuscripts
MT = Hebrew Masoretic Text
NT = New Testament
Op.cit. = Latin, opera citato = in the work previously cited
OT = Old Testament
p., pp = page(s)
Plenary = full, complete, entire
Qumran = Area in Palestine 10 miles south of Jericho, Qumran was on a "dead-end
street" and provided a perfect location for the isolationist sect of the Essenes to
live.
Rabbinical = Rabbin, A title assumed by the Jewish doctors, signifying master or lord.
This title is not conferred by authority, but assumed or allowed by courtesy to
learned men. Rabbinical = L, a. Pertaining to the Rabins, or to their opinions,
learning and language.
Revision = re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book or writing or of a
proof sheet; a revision of statutes.
RT = Received Text
TR = Textus Receptus
TT = Traditional Text
Vid. Supra = Latin, Vide supra = See above or other material in this work
Viz = Latin, videlicet = namely
 A PAGE FROM ORIGINS HEXAPLA
NOTE THE LXX OVER THE CENTER COLUMN1

THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS IS NOT

1 Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., Old Testament in Greek (Wipf and Stock
Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, Originally published in 1902, Reprint, 2003) p.
62-63
FOUND IN THE G2 BUT IN THE ANCIENT
LANDMARKS

INTRODUCTION
The character of Gods words is not found in the so-called Septuagint
(LXX). Gods words are verbally and plenarily inerrant, infallible, inspired,
preserved, and precise (specific). Their precision is to the jot and tittle, the
smallest parts of the Hebrew letters [Mat. 5:17-18]. The LXX is not precise
(specific) by any stretch of the imagination, as this document will demon-
strate.
In addition, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are to be precisely obe-
dient. Our need to be precisely obedient rests in our love for our Saviour
and for His words, which are like a legal document [Mat. 19:17; Lk. 8:15,
11:28; Jn 12:47-48; 14:15, 23; 15:10; 1 Cor. 15:2;1 Jn. 5:2].
A clear example of the precise commands and obedience that God de-
sires from His followers is in the book of Joshua. However, before giving
the example, we must understand or review some typology (types)3 given in
the Old Testament. In Genesis 6:14 Noah is commanded to build a wooden
ark covered with pitch. The ark of wood is a type of Christ who carries us
across the storm of life to new beginnings. The pitch represents the blood
shed for us by the Lamb of God; and there is no redemption from sin with-
out the shedding of blood which covers our sins [Jn. 1:29; Rom. 4:7; Col.
1:14; Heb. 9:22]. In Exo. 2:3 the baby Moses is placed into an ark covered
2 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Septuagint, Name, Sec-
tion II, The "Septuagint" and the abbreviated form "LXX" have been the
usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now discredited
legend, they are coming to be replaced by "the Old Testament in Greek," or
"the Alexandrian version" with the abbreviation "G".
3 Type is a sign; a symbol; a figure of something to come; as, Abra-
ham's sacrifice and the paschal lamb, were types of Christ. To this word is
opposed antitype. Christ, in this case, is the antitype. (From Websters 1868
Dictionary)
with pitch and made from bulrushes.4 The ark covered with pitch, the type
of the Lord Jesus Christ, was for the babys protection. In Deut. 10:3 Moses
made an ark of wood and placed within it the two stone tables with the
Ten Commandments. The tables had the precise words of God written upon
them. The words had jots and tittles and vowel pointings or moreover the
Hebrew consonants within the ten commandment words would be nonsen-
sical.5 The wooden ark now had the Word of God within it. Similarly, the
begotten son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was placed into a body [Heb.
10:5], an earthen vessel (typically a wooden vessel), which was broken
for us [Lev. 6:28, 14:50]. He brought the precise words of God forever set-
tled in Heaven [Psa 119:89] to earth contained within the wooden earthly
vessel, which was totally consumed on the altar of the Cross for us.
The typology given to us in the book of Joshua should come to life in
light of the types and antitypes presented above [see footnote 3]. In Joshua
3:3-4 we discover that the Jewish nation was commanded to follow the holy
ark of the covenant (a wooden vessel containing the words of God, typi-
cally the Holy Lord Jesus Christ) in a precise way. They were to follow the
ark about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it (v. 4).
They were to follow it precisely that ye may know the way by which ye
must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore (v. 4). They were not
to be in front of it or beside it, but following it precisely for fear of turning
from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whitherso-
ever thou goest [Jos. 1:7, Psa 1].
Typically, we are to follow precisely the Lord Jesus Christs jots and
tittles. But that is not all of the typology we need to consider. After cross-
ing the Jordan River by faith and by following precisely the words of

4 Bulrushes were used for making writing materials just as wood is

made into paper. The eternal son of God was begotten in an earthen vessel,
made of wood. Jesus, the Word, [Jn 1:1-2] is the ultimate writing instru-
ment of God.
5 Dr. Thomas Strouse, Scholarly Myths Perpetuated on Rejecting the
Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Dean Burgon Society News, Issues 71
& 72, Dean Burgon Society, Collingswood, NJ, 08108) 1-8
God, the reproach of Egypt6 was removed from Israel [Jos. 5:9b, Psa.
119:22, 39]. The nation finally learned obedience. Subsequently, the army
of God was allowed to go before the ark of the covenant as the 7 priests
carrying 7 trumpets marched around Jericho for 7 days, and on the 7th day,
they marched around the city 7 times. [Jos. 6:6-15]. For a while, the na-
tion of Israel practiced obedience to precise words without murmuring and
complaining.
How can one follow or use a document, the LXX, that is corrupt, that
does not contain precision, nor is it based upon precision, and whose history
is based on fables? One purpose of this paper is to explore the duplicity as-
sociated with the Septuagint. We are in Gods army and for us to be allowed
to go before the Ark of the Covenant, we must be precise [Mat. 5:17-18,
24:35; Jn. 12:47-48, 14:15; Jos. 3:3-4, 6:6-15; 2 Tim. 2:1-4].

AN AGENDA: FABLES RATHER THAN TABLES

The common method of examining the history of the Greek text of
the Bible by students, scholars, teachers, and authors is to consider the
legendary Greek translations of the Old Testament texts called the Sep-
tuagint7 (abbreviated LXX), supposedly written by unknown translators, at
unknown places, and at an unknown time. This method focuses the hearers
attention on mythological stories immediately, which are subsequently at-
tributed some veracity by those heralding the stories. The Apostles Peter and
Paul warn us about fables8 and about vain jangling (babble), which
some having swerved have turned aside to mythological stories from the
truth and to nonstop possibilities (e.g. nonstop genealogies of texts). The
questions raised are great fodder for never-ending conjecture; and there
6 The constraints of space do not allow this author to pursue the typology of the
Jordan River and Egypt, but please accept that the Jordan River is typical of surrendering
or yielding to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Egypt is a type of the lost sinner in the world.
7 The first use of the Latin term, Septuagint (meaning 70, therefore LXX), was by
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) following the Letter of Aristeas fable which referred
to hebdomekonta presbyterio (70 elders). Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) referred to it
as para tous hebdomekonta, Josephus (37/38-100 A.D.), Origin (250), Philo (20 B.C.-50
A. D.) and Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403 A. D.) refer to it. See pp. 70-74 of the Canon
Debate cited below.
8 Greek, muthoi from which we get myths
are many who try to force revelation or truth from the speculation. The
frequently repeated possibilities become truth in the mind of the storytell-
ers and hearers; and the reality that they are only fabrications that min-
ister endless questions, possibilities, suppositions, conjectures, theories,
guesses, speculations, or hypotheses is soon forgotten. [1 Tim 1:4, 6; 4:7; 2
Tim 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pe 1:16]. As a result, the mythological Septuagint,9
OT Greek Translation, becomes a reality in the minds of many individuals,
when in truth it does not exist.10 What is the agenda of those perpetuating
the fable and the fraud? Behind every fraud is an agenda. The purpose of
this paper is to look briefly at the agenda, the history, the text, and the du-
plicity associated with the G (the LXX or Septuagint).
The following example of fraud is given to demonstrate that fraud is
associated with an agenda. It is not presented as a theological issue. It is a
less well-known example of a deception demonstrating a hidden agenda,
which is similar to the Septuagint fable and is often repeated in the class-
rooms and in literature. It concerns the history of the first Baptist church
planted in America. Dr. Bill Grady has documented that not only is the
date of 1638 for the establishment of the first Baptist church at Providence,
Rhode Island deceptive, but the person credited with establishing the first
Baptist church in America is not the one who did.
Roger Williams did not establish the first Baptist church in American
in 1638. Rather, he established a pseudo-church in 1639 at Providence. Dr.
John Clark, a physician from England and a true Baptist (Roger Williams
was not a true Baptist), was the founder of the first Baptist church in New-
port, Rhode Island in 1638. Dr. Grady concludes:
Thus we may confidently conclude that the first church at New-
port and not the first church at Providence, is the true first Baptist
church in America, and Dr. Clarke, and not Roger Williams, was the
founder and pastor of the first Baptist church in Rhode Island and
America!11

9 Dr. Gary E LaMore, Keep RankCan You? (Paper presented to the DBS
Annual Meeting, Heritage Baptist University, 2004) p. 17.
10 Floyd Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis (KingsWord
Press, Woodlands, TX, 6th edition) p. 3-9, 19-21.
11 William P. Grady, Th.D., Ph.D, How Satan Turned America Against God (Grady
 What is the agenda of those perpetuating the false information? The
scheme of those corrupting the first Baptist church history in America is
based upon establishing support for pedobaptism. Roger Williams was a
pedobaptist who immediately baptized 11 (eleven) other pedobaptists into
his church. Dr. Grady states:

This ruse of the devil was orchestrated for a specific pur-

pose indeed. With the Providence congregation designated the
first Baptist church in America, pedobaptists have been able to
.challenge the legitimacy of all subsequent Baptist growth,12

Here is another well-known example of fraudulent scholarship with an

agenda. Many of you reading or hearing this paper were taught the coun-
terfeit critical Greek text in Bible college or seminary. The critical text
was constructed from unsupported, baseless, critical text canons with much
deceit (see below). The agenda was and is to destroy the authority of the
Received Texts (Received Greek and Masoretic Texts). There is an agenda
in most plans that are based on deceit and half-truths. To think otherwise is
to be nave.
Most of us have been innocently duped somewhere along the path of
our lives. However, when institutions or individuals continue to declare
fraudulent documents and documentation as useful (e.g. The Letter of Aris-
teas), and when contrary evidence proves there is foolishness involved, it
exposes three potential issues:
1. There is a plan (agenda)
2. There is pride.
3. There is deception.
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and
the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. [Proverbs 8:13]
[forward = Heb. tahpukah = fraud, HDW]

Why does God hate these things? God hates them because these things

Publications, Knoxville, TN, 2005) p. 113 [see pages 103-121 for the full story].
12 Ibid. Grady, p. 103.
lead innocents astray.13 The author of this paper innocently used a bible
for many years that was constructed from corrupted texts promoted by aca-
demic messengers from around the world with an agenda.
[B]ut I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and
love which is in Christ Jesus. [1 Tim. 1:13b-14]

There is an agenda related to the Septuagint. The evil of the corrupt-

ed Septuagint is persistently promoted through pride and arrogancy. The
following information exposes the agenda and folly associated with the so-
called Septuagint. The history and information related to the Septuagint
is an affront to the character (see below) of God and to the words of God.

THE IMAGINARY SEPTUAGINT

There are many myths associated with an Old Testament Greek trans-
lation and its origin. Most of these fables focus on an infamous book14
called the Letter of Aristeas15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged
claims of the Letters documentation by authors who wrote before the first
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His
first sojourn on earth.16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh
century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-
brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-
cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is suspected that there may
have been a local Alexandrian translation of a few of the Old Testament
books by the time of Christ. However, most Jews did not respect it, except

13 Exo. 23:7, Psa 15:5, Psa 19:13 are about abuse of the innocent. Many individuals
are responsible for the shedding of innocent blood for which they will be held account-
able. Leading innocent man astray by fraud may well cause their souls to be lost (their
blood to be shed) for eternity. [Psa 94:21, Isa 59:7] Was this Judas great sin? [Mat. 27:4]
14 Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, Editors, Canon Debate (Hendrick-
son Publishers, Peabody , MA, 2002). Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 12.100, Aritaiou bib-
lion cited, p. 70
15 The Letter is preserved in the supposedly Lost Books of the Bible, See footnote
five, p. 3, in Jones, Floyd, Th.D., Ph.D., The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis, KingsWord
Press, Woodlands, TX, 6th edition,
16 Jones, Floyd, Th.D., Ph.D., The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis, KingsWord
Press, Woodlands, TX, 6th edition, p. 5;
those in Egypt, because it was such an idiomatic collection of patchwork
translations of some of the books of the OT.17
Moreover, speculations persist about the value of the Letter. Albert C.
Sundberg, Jr., writes:

The Letter of Aristeas, however, proved to be a fiction.18

[my emphasis, HDW]

However, Sundberg joins with others to promote the fictional docu-

ment reporting,

Swete and Thackeray suggest that, despite Hodys devas-

tating critique of the Letter of Aristeas, there still remained a kernel
of historical material.19

Karen Jobes and Moises Silva in their book, Invitation to the Septua-
gint, released in the year 2000 relate:

Even though the authenticity of the letter should be re-

jected, some of its information is probably reliable.20 [my empha-
sis, HDW]

Sundberg, quoted above, goes on to explain that the reason for believing
there is some historical truth in the Letter is that in the Letter are recorded
two instances, which he concludes are significant. Two individuals, dating
ca. 380 B.C., using the translations of the Law, which is of divine ori-
gin (i.e. from the Hebrew) for plays either developed cataracts in both
eyes or was driven out of his mind.21 From the paucity of information
presented, no one could conclude that a translation of the Old Testament or
the Pentateuch was available. [i.e. perhaps only the sections for the plays
17 DiVietro, Dr. K.D., Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX)?, The
Bible for today, Collingswood, NJ, B.F.T. # 2707, p. 4
18 Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, Editors, op. cit., p. 74.
19 Ibid. p. 76
20 Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint (Baker Academic,
Grand Rapids, MI, 2000) p. 34.
21 Ibid. p. 75.
were translated from the Law.] Futhermore, these fabulous instances
articulate exaggerations, superstitions, fables, and vain jangling. Men de-
velop cataracts and go out of their mind while doing many things in
life. However, anywhere the Letter is presented or discussed, exaggerations
soon appear.
In addition, not only is the Letter fictional, but Dr. Moises Silva and
Dr. Karen Jobes in their book, Invitation to the Septuagint, agreed that the
purpose of the Letter to establish a pre-Christian Septuagint is hyperbole
and state:

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Septuagint.

This may seem like an odd statement in a book entitled Invitation
to the Septuagint, but unless the reader appreciates the fluidity
and ambiguity of the term, he or she will quickly become confused
by the literature.22 [my emphasis, HDW]

The reader is cautioned, therefore, that there is really no

such thing as the Septuagint.23 [emphasis mine, HDW]

THE CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Not only is there no such thing as a Septuagint, but what is presented as
the text of the LXX or G is a mess. Dr. Waite states:

It can be clearly seenthat the Septuagint is inaccurate and

inadequate and deficient as a translation. To try to reconstruct
the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the modern versions
are attempting to do) from such loose and unacceptable transla-
tion would be like trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament
from the Living Bible of Ken Taylor.24 [my emphasis, HDW]

In addition, Dr. J. A. Moorman, a manuscript expert and a DBS mem-

ber, states:
22 Karen H. Jobes and Moses Silva, op. cit., p. 30.
23 Ibid, p. 32.
24 Dr. Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (The Dean Burgon Society Press; Colling-
swood, NJ, 1999) p. 14-15.
 The Greek of the LXX is not straightforward Koine Greek.
At its most idiomatic, it abounds with Hebraisms; at its worse it
is little more than Hebrew in disguise. But with these reservations
the Pentateuch can be classified as fairly idiomatic and consis-
tent, though there are traces of it being the work of more than one
translator. Outside the Pentateuch some books, it seems, were di-
vided between two translators working simultaneously, while oth-
ers were translated piecemeal at different times by different men
using widely different methods and vocabulary. Consequently the
style varies from fairly good Koine Greek (as part of Joshua) to
indifferent Greek (as in Chronicles, Psalms, the Minor Prophets,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and parts of Kings) to literal and sometimes
unintelligible translation (as in Judges, Ruth, Song of Solomon,
Lamentations, and other parts of Kings).

Thus the Pentateuch is generally well done, though it occa-

sionally paraphrases anthropomorphisms offensive to Alexandri-
an Jews, disregards consistency in religious technical terms,
and shows its impatience with the repetitive descriptions in Exo-
dus by mistakes, abbreviations, and wholesale omissions
Isaiah as a translation is bad; Esther, Job, and Proverbs are free
paraphrases. The original LXX version of Job was much shorter
than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations
from Theodotinand the original LXX rendering is nowadays
to be found in only two MSS and the Syriac25 [my emphasis,
HDW]

Dr. Waite in his book, Defending the King James Bible, comments on
the Septuagint:

I have written a study on that based upon Dr. Charles Fred

Lincoln's notes which he taught us when I was a student at the
OLD Dallas Theological Seminary. [B.F.T. #9] He taught us a
course on "Covenants and Dispensations." He quoted Berosis,
and Martin Anstey The Romance of Bible Chronology. Dr. Lincoln
taught us that the Masoretic text of Genesis 5 and 10 is accurate
and the Septuagint text is not [accurate]. The first question is:
Can you use the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 10? Can they be
used as chronological data? We say yes. The second question is:
25 Moorman, op. cit., p. 14-15.
 Which text do you use, the Septuagint text or the Masoretic He-
brew text? Well, we take the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Septua-
gint text, instead of 4004 B. C. lists about 2000 more years--you
get about 6004 B. C. The Septuagint adds extra years. The years
are not the same.26 [my emphasis and addition, HDW]

Drs. Silva and Jobes also state:

We have no evidence that any Greek version of the Hebrew

Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior
to the second century of this era. [my emphasis, HDW]

Dr. Robert Barnett, Vice-President, Dean Burgon Society (DBS), in his

address, Francis Turretin on the Holy Scriptures, to the DBS in 1995 indi-
cated Francis Turretins opinion:

"FOURTEENTH QUESTION: THE SEPTUAGINT -- Is the

Septuagint version of the Old Testament authentic? We deny."27

Dr. Gary LaMore wrote a paper, Keep RankCan You?, concern-

ing slippage of institutions and individuals away from the KJB and the Re-
ceived Texts. In that paper he states:

the [so-called] *Septuagint sometimes has a reading that

appears older or closer to what scholars think was the original
text of the Hebrew Bible and can form the basis of an emenda-
tion (a correction of a text that seems to have been corrupted in
transmission).28 [my underlined emphasis]

The Way Of Life Encyclopedia reports,

But the Septuagint (LXX) version for the most part is worse
than a Living Version. It is the Old Testament written in Greek.

26 Rev. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., Defending the King James Bible (Bible For To-
day, Collingswood, NJ, 4th Printing, 1992) p. 229.
27 Dr. Robert Barnett, Septuagint, (DBS Message Book, Bible For Today, Collin-
gswood, N.J., 1995) 1-4
28 LaMore, op. cit., p. 17.
 It is rotten. Its text is corrupt. Even the International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) article on the Septuagint (LXX) states
that it has a very tattered and inferior Greek text. Remember,
the ISBE is no friend of the King James Bible's text. The use of
the Septuagint (LXX) by these new versions instead of using the
Hebrew text is a serious error.29 [my emphasis, HDW]

Since Dr. Silva and Jobes rightly conclude that there is no such thing as
the Septuagint (vid. supra) and they also rightly conclude;

The term Septuagint, which has been used in a confusing

variety of ways, gives the inaccurate impression that this docu-
ment is a homogeneous unit.30 [my emphasis, HDW]

They continue on the following pages to outline the use of the name,
Septuagint,

to refer to several quite different things.31

They conclude that perhaps the name refers to the following:

1. Any and all ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible.
2. A particular printed edition of the Greek text where either Old
Testament or Old Testament and New Testament are meant.
3. A particular printed edition of a reconstructed text.32
4. The Sinaiticus Manuscript
5. The Vaticanus Manuscript
6. The oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament from subsequent
translations and revisions.
7. Only the oldest translation of the Pentateuch

29 David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia (Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, MI,
2002) p. 335.
30 Op. cit. Jobes and Silva, p. 29.
31 Ibid. p. 30
32 Ibid. p.30
 8. The oldest translation of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Old Tes-
tament also known as the LXX/OG (OG means translations of the
rest of the Bible called Old Greek)
From the mouths of these experts and those quoted below, we may
safely conclude:
1. There is no such thing as the Septuagint.
2. The text of the Septuagint is a confusing variety of texts.
3. The text of the Septuagint is corrupted, inadequate, inaccu-
rate, and rotten
4. The text of the Septuagint is filled with mistakes, abbreviations,
and wholesale omissions.
5. The authenticity of the Septuagint is denied.
6. The Letter of Aristeas allegedly documenting the Septuagint is
fraudulent.
7. There is an agenda related to the Septuagint.
The Dean Burgon Society should reject:
1. The use of the Septuagint, (LXX),
2. The name, Septuagint (LXX)
3. The consideration of the Septuagint (LXX),
for the reasons to follow. However, and most importantly, whenever the
name is used, we are in a sense lending credibility or credence to an imagi-
nary text built upon an imaginary name and a fraudulent Letter, which lends
support to the agenda of those who reject the preserved, plenary, infallible,
inerrant, words of God.

THE IMAGINARY SEPTUAGINT USED FOR RE-

CONSTRUCTION:
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that not only has there been great
confusion surrounding the non-entity, the imaginary Septuagint (LXX), but
also there has been great fraud (vid. supra). This comes not only from well-
trained believers in the preservation of the words of God, but from the camp
of modernistic textual critics as well, as seen above, and as will be con-
firmed below. In addition, as we shall see, scholars report the construction
of Greek texts by apostate men, whether claiming to be Jews or Christians,
whose texts are called the Septuagint (LXX).
Yet, despite this well-known information, well-known men continue
to claim the ability to reconstruct the Hebrew text from the LXX Greek
texts. They claim they can use:
1. The mythological Septuagint Old Testament translation, once it is
found or
2. Translations of the Hebrew text into Greek by known apostates
called the Septuagint by the Ebonites Aquila, Symmachus, Theo-
dotin, etc) or
3. Poorly constructed Greek texts, or
4. Partial texts (the short texts of Biblical books found at Qumran,
similar to Metzgers Readers Digest Bible), or
5. Texts with omissions, commissions, and confusion beyond compre-
hension (e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS).

DUPLICITY
The modernists claim these very poor manuscripts give significant evi-
dence for the reconstruction of the vorlage of the texts.33 Such is the state
of scholarship in these last days. (viz.) The state of scholarship today is
duplicity.34
For example, Jobes and Silva, who know and understand the informa-
33 Vorlage is defined by the books, Invitation to the Septuagint and Canon Debate,
as the parent text from which it is translated.
34 Webster 1828: duplicity-- Doubleness of heart or speech; the act or practice of
exhibiting a different or contrary conduct, or uttering different or contrary sentiments, at
different times, in relation to the same thing; or the act of dissembling ones real opinions
for the purpose of concealing them and misleading persons in the conversation and inter-
course of life; double-dealing; dissimulation; deceit.
tion presented above and below demonstrate duplicity when they state:

In theory, the Septuagint should allow scholars to recon-

struct that earlier Hebrew text, though in practice this activity is
fraught with difficulties.35 [my emphasis, HDW]

If one does not know the original text being sought nor the validity of
the text used for the reconstruction, how can the text be restored? This is
similar to a child trying to reconstruct a lego house without knowing the
initial design. The perfect reconstruction of a complicated, detailed church
interior as shown in the power-point Lego slides (or see the pictures in the
appendix, pp. 46-47 ) without the original details would be impossible. Al-
though liberals know and understand that there is no such thing as the Sep-
tuagint, and that the translations of the OT into Greek are replete with a
very tattered and inferior Greek text (many scattered Lego pieces, the jots
and tittles), they press toward the impossible dream and, I might add, the
unnecessary dream, wasting time and money. We have copies [apographs]
of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts [autographs]. The Greek
translations of the Old Testament and the corrupted Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament are a mess. Yet Jobes and Silva press on and quote Al-
bert Pietersma, who says:

The primary focus in LXX text-criticism must always remain

on the reconstruction of the original text.36 [my emphasis]

Edward Glenny, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, made a similar

statement. He is obviously drinking from the same cup as the modernists or
liberal critics. He said:

Our purpose at Central is to reconstruct from all the wit-

nesses available to us the text essentially preserved in all, but per-
fectly preserved in none [footnote 3, Rene Pache, The Inspiration
and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 197]. It
is evident from the historical evidence that God has providentially
preserved His Word for the present generation. However, we do
35 Op. cit. Jobes and Silva, p.21.
36 Ibid. p. 124 (Jobes).
 not believe that God has preserved His Word perfectly and mi-
raculously in any one manuscript or group of manuscripts, or in all
the manuscripts. Therefore, in our study of the text we work with
all the manuscripts to compile a text closer to the original than any
one manuscript or group of manuscripts.37 [my emphasis, HDW,
notice he does not say words]

And Jobes and Silva would be so bold as to state:

No New Testament scholar can afford to ignore the

Septuagint.38

WHOSE DICTIONARY AND WORDS CAN WE

TRUST?
Why not IGNORE the Septuagint? Its a mess.39 Why dont we rely on
the great translation, the KJB, translated by linguists who knew all the early
Greek Christian masters works? Why dont we quit trying to be pseudo-
scholars, forever questioning the well-documented and superior translation
by superior scholars? We should stop using corrupted lexicons and manu-
scripts (e.g. Septuagint revisions and recensions by the dozens) written by
unbelieving scholars. How can we trust Greek words used by the apostate
Origen to translate the Hebrew Old Testament and to help with understand-
ing the theology of the Bible?
Most of us have been made aware of the built in dictionary within the
Bible. Dr. Floyd Jones says:

Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the

final connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary or et-

37 Edward Glenny affirms Michael A. Grisanti, editor, The Bible Version Debate:
The perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 131.
38 Op. Cit. (Jobes) p. 24
39 This author is aware of the claim that the Septuagint acts like a theological
thought bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament as a commentary and
word study. See Dr. K. D. DiVietro, Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX)
(Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ) p. 7, and Jobes, Karen H. and Silva, Moises, Invita-
tion To The Septuagint (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000) p. 24-25.
 ymology. Etymology, though helpful, is not an exact science. It
should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.40

This author would add to this statement that any extra-Biblical dic-
tionary or lexicon should be used with GREAT caution. God provided His
lexicon and dictionary within the words he preserved.
Although we do not agree with everything written in the book, In Awe
of Thy Word, Understanding the King James Bible by Gail Riplinger, the
documentation of the built in dictionary/lexicon in the KJB is significant;
and we should take notice.41 She states that:

using tools from the new field of computational linguistics.

This new research demonstrates what Auburn University Profes-
sor, Ward Allen calls [T]he miraculous perfection of the Autho-
rized Version42

The 1200 page book proceeds to document the dictionary, lexicon, al-
literation, rhyme, consonance, assonance, eye-rhyme, sense rhyme, slant
rhyme, echo techniques, parallel sounds and thoughts., rhythm (iambic, tro-
chaic, anapestic, dactylic), and much more that is found in the King James
Bible. [See the appendix, p. 46, for a few examples]
Furthermore, many expert students of Gods words have documented
that the KJB is based upon the original inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek words preserved for us by the Jewish scribes and the church [Rom.
3:2, 1 Tim 3:14-15]. Dr. D. A. Waite, who has a doctorate in theology and a
doctorate in linguistics states:

In fact, it is my own personal conviction and belief, after

studying this subject since 1971, that the WORDS of the re-
ceived Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the
KING JAMES BIBLE are the very WORDS which God has

40 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 36

41 G. A. Riplinger, In Awe of thy Word (A.V. Publications Corp., Ararat, VA, 2003)
a 1200 page work, which documents the built-in lexicon of the KJB. However, this author
cannot accept the inspiration, theopneustos, of the KJB.
42 G. A. Riplinger, op. cit., p. 6.
 PRESERVED down through the centuries, being the exact
WORDS of the ORIGINALS themselves. As such, I believe
the are the INSPIRED WORDS. I believe they are PRESERVED
WORDS. I believe they are INERRANT WORDS. I believe they
are INFALLIBLE WORDS. This is why I believe so strongly that
any valid translation MUST be based upon these original texts,
and these alone! [All emphases in the quote were made by Dr.
Waite]43

WHICH TEXT IS INSPIRED AND PRESERVED,

THE LXX OR THE RECEIVED TEXT?
Has everyone noticed the latest statements by modernistic textual crit-
ics affirming the preservation of the words of God? Although duplicity is
in their works, they confirm the preservation of the Masoretic Text. For
example, Dr. Randall Price, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, an
expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, states:

The number of Old Testament manuscripts discovered

among the Dead Sea scrolls (about 223-233) is more than twice
the number of New Testament Greek papyri (96). However, de-
spite this abundance of ancient witnesses to the text of the Bible,
few English translations of the Old Testament have been affected.
The reason is that generally the biblical Qumran texts are so
close to the Hebrew text behind the Masoretic Text that they
lend support to, rather than emend, those versions that rely
upon the Received Text.44 [my emphasis, HDW]

The Masoretic Text is the very preserved words of God as He

promised. In addition, the historical character of the Greek New Testa-
ment is above reproach.

It can no longer be successfully argued that events and be-

liefs described in the New Testament were a product of Christian

43 Dr. Harry E. Carr, Th.D. Ph.D., This I Believe, A Study in Systematic Theology
(Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE, Revised 2004) p. 11.
44 Dr. Randall Price, Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Harvest House Publishers,
Eugene, Oregon, 1996) p. 146.
 theologians centuries later.45

Dr. Price also counters scholars such as Bart Erhman46 who deni-
grates the preserved text by stating:

Rather than support the recent theories of documentary dis-

unity, the Scrolls have returned scholars to a time when the Bibles
internal witness to its own consistency and veracity was fully ac-
cepted by its adherents.47

Over and over again, theories, such as a revision of the Hebrew

canon at the Council of Jamnia (a.k.a. Yavneh) by Rabbinic scholars,
lost Scriptures, and false Scriptures, are discarded.48
However, in spite of the information gleaned concerning the preserva-
tion and inspiration of the words of God, duplicity raises its ugly head when
Dr. Price states:

To properly understand this concern we must distinguish

between inspiration and preservation. Inspiration refers to the
original autographs [Hope he is referring to the process of in-
spriation, and not the words. The inspired words are preserved
in apographs. HDW] of the Bible as given by God through men,
while preservation has to do with copies that have been passed
down through the ages by human agency alone. Some people
confuse preservation with inspiration and contend that the copies
that have come down to us cannot have been altered in anyway
from the autograph, such as in an English translation like the King
James Version. [This is Ruckmanism. See below, HDW] This er-
roneous view must be rejected as both unbiblical and unfactual.
Nothing in biblical statements such as All Scripture is inspired by
God (2 Timothy 3:16), Until heaven and earth pass away, not
the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all
is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). Or Heaven and earth will pass
away, but My words will not pass away (Mark 13:31) requires
45 Ibid. p. 140 . (Price).
46 Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2003)
also see Lost Scriptures, by the same author and publisher.
47 Price, op. cit., p. 164.
48 Canon Debate, op. cit., p. 91, 146-62.
 that every inspired word must likewise be preserved outside of the
autographs. [This is vintage B. Warfield. HDW] Yet we can say
and say with greater confidence than ever based on the witness
of the Scrollsthat our present text is accurate and reliable, and
that nothing affecting the doctrine of the original has been com-
promised or changed in any way in the manuscript copies. The
Scrolls have affirmed that the Masoretic Text behind our English
translations was carefully preserved.49 [my comments, HDW]

Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. T. Strouse, Dr. J. Moorman and others have repeat-
edly attested to the truth that the words accurately copied from the auto-
graphs are just as inspired as the original words. God did not promise to
preserve the materials the words were written upon, but the words. Those
words preserved in the virtually identical Received manuscripts (apographs)
are the inspired words of God in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
For example, Dr. Waite has reported this certainty in over 20 places in
many of his works. Here are two samples and a complete list is appended
to this work.

I have never said that the King James Bible is a perfect

translation. This would be the Dr. Peter Ruckman view. He uses
the words inerrant, and infallible when referring to the English. I
use those terms inerrant and infallible to refer to the original
autographs and to the Hebrew and Greek texts which God
has preserved for us today. Those are inspired Words in the
Hebrew. Those are inspired words in the Greek. Since God
has preserved those Hebrew and Greek words I believe by
faith that those Hebrew and Greek words are inerrant and
infallible."50

In another work, Dr. Waite says,

"Let's be very careful about this. It is true that the process

of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in in-
spired Words the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

49 Price, op. cit., p. 145.

50 Dr. D. A. Waite, PhD. ThD., Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions (Bible
For Today, Collingswood, NJ) p. 42.
 being given by God's process of breathing out His Words. The
process has never been repeated; the manuscripts that we have
today were not the result of the process of inspiration. However,
it can be said that the Words given originally by the process
of inspiration if they have been preserved exactly in manu-
scripts we have today are inspired Words. If, then, they are
the same Words that God gave by the process of inspiration,
we can refer to them as inspired Words. To say it another
way, I believe that words in the apographs (the copies of the
original manuscripts) that are accurate copies of the original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words can be referred to as in-
spired Words. In this sense, therefore, (since they have been
preserved Word for Word) I refer to the Hebrew and Greek
Words that underlie the King James Bible as inspired Words.
This is a major point that needs to be kept clear."51

THE RECEIVED GREEK AND HEBREW

TEXTS ARE SET ASIDE: REVISIONS ARE
CLAIMED TO JUSTIFY FURTHER REVISIONS
Yet, most liberals or modernists subtly denigrate the Received Greek
and Masoretic Texts as a basis for pursuing the (imaginary) Septuagint by
repeating the chant from the modernists camp concerning the theories of a
Lucian or Syrian recension of the Greek text and a revision of the Hebrew
text. They frequently refer to the Lucian theory as fact and call it the time
when the text was standardized.52

Although the transmission of the Greek NT was stabilized as

early as the fourth century, leading to its standardization [i.e. re-
constructed or recension, HDW] in a form known as the Byzantine
Text,53 [my emphasis, HDW]

There is no evidence for a Received Text standardization (recension)

51 Dr. D. A. Waite, PhD. ThD. Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions
(Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ) p. 58.
52 One reason they may have started using standardization is to subtly undermine
the name some believing Bible students use for the Received Greek and Hebrew text, the
standard text.
53 Jobes and Silva, op. cit., p. 147.
during the third or fourth century. This is another oft-repeated supposition
without any validity or evidence. Dean Burgon calls it

the (imaginary) Syrian Revision of A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,

and he goes on to state:

Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the au-

thorsinterpolated the genuine text of the Gospels with between
2877 (B) and 3455 (Aleph) spurious words; mutilated the genuine
text in respect of between 536 (B) and 829 (Aleph) words, sub-
stituted for as many genuine Words, between 935 (B) and 1114
(Aleph) uninspired words., licentiously transposed between 2098
(B) and 2299 (Aleph); and in respect to number, case, mood,
tense, person, etc. altered without authority between 1132 (B) and
1265 (Aleph) words.54

What we do have are many copies of the Received Text from many
countries and verified in many different languages; and we have many
Received Text verses from many church fathers quotes.55 Wilbur Picker-
ing believed a reading should be attested to by a wide variety of witnesses
meaning:

in the first place, many geographical areas, but also different

kinds of witnessesMSS, Fathers, Versions, and Lectionaries.56

He said Burgon addressed the idea of variety in regards to both aspects,

saying:

Variety distinguishing witness massed together must needs

constitute a most powerful argument for believing such Evidence
to be true. Witnesses of different kinds; from different countries;
54 Dr. H. D. Williams, The Lie That Changed the Modern World (Bible For Today
Press, Collingswood, NJ; 2004) p. 209.
55 Dr. Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Ver-
sion (Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ, 2005).
56 Wilbur Pickering, Th.D., The Identity of the New Testament Text (Thomas Nelson
Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1980) p. 142.
 speaking different tongues:--witnesses who can never have met,
and between whom it is incredible that there should exist collu-
sion of any kind:--such witnesses deserve to be listened to most
respectfully. Indeed, when witnesses of so varied a sort agree in
large numbers, they must needs be accounted worthy of even im-
plicit confidence Variety it is which imparts virtue to mere Num-
ber, prevents the witness-box from being filled with packed depo-
nents, ensures genuine testimony. False witness is thus detected
and condemned, because it agrees not with the rest. Variety is the
consent of independent witnesses,

It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay

supreme attention to the combined testimony of the Unicials and
of the whole body of the Cursive Copies. They are (a) dotted over
at least 1000 years: (b) they evidently belong to so many divers
countries,--Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria,
Alexandria, and other part of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern
Italy, Gaul, England and Ireland: (c) they exhibit so many strange
characteristics and peculiar sympathies: (d) they so clearly repre-
sent countless families of MSS., being in no single instance abso-
lutely identical in their text, and certainly not being copies of any
other Codex in existence,--that their unanimous decision I hold to
be an absolutely irrefragable evidence of the Truth.57

Dean Burgon was talking about the Received Text (Textus Receptus).
Dr. Waite says:

If you are talking about the Textus Receptus of the New Tes-
tament we find those manuscripts virtually identical one with the
othera seamless garment. There are a few spelling differences
but other than that not much else.58

The Hebrew (Received) Masoretic Text is also put out to pasture by

the similar claim of reconstruction. They use the D.S.S. as evidence of a
pre-Christian Septuagint closer to the vorlage. However, no B. C. Greek
57 Dean John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Vol 1 (The
Dean Burgon Society Press, Collingswood, NJ, 1998) pp. 50-51.
58 Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., Fuzzy Facts From Fundamentalists on Bible
Versions (The Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ) p. 65.
Old Testament text can be produced with any certainty. But when it comes
to the Masorectic Text, they suddenly ignore the evidence of many of the
D.S.S. and claim a revision to the Hebrew text in the first century. They
know that the evidence in the D.S.S. shows the mimeo-graphic like quality
of several Biblical books and state the facts clearly. Yet, elsewhere in their
writings, they forget this evidence and claim a revision. It also slips their
minds that the cultic Essene community separated from the orthodox Jewish
community that was given the responsibility by God to copy and preserve
the text. Romans 3:2 states, Much every way: chiefly, because that unto
them (the Jews), were committed the oracles of God. (My addition, HDW)
Here are some examples of this duplicity.

The few Qumran texts that differ from the MT have deserv-
edly received much scholarly attention.59 [MT equals the Maso-
retic Hebrew Text; My emphasis, HDW]

In the same book, this statement is made:

It is clear from the Hebrew texts found at Qumran that the

MT, is indeed an ancient text that was already stable before the
time of Jesus.60

Yet this comment also is made:

In spite of the remarkably accurate work of the Masoretes,

scribal changes prior to the standardization of the Hebrew text
need to be identified and evaluated. The LXX is our primary
source for such data, and in some biblical books it may contain a
significant number of textual variants that would have been pres-
ent in its parent text.61

Obviously, the data available to many liberal scholars today is ignored.

Another significant finding in Invitation to the Septuagint is the ignoring of
information concerning the nearly exact copies of several Biblical books
59 Jobes and Silva, op. cit., p. 176.
60 Ibid. p. 177 (Jobes and Silva).
61 Ibid. p. 146 (Jobes and Silva).
found in the D.S.S. For example, J. P. Green reports that a copy of the book
of Isaiah in the D.S.S. matches the Hebrew Masoretic Text:

Much more recently, at Qumran, two manuscripts of Isaiah

have been found. One of them is complete, and dates from the
1st century before Christ. The surprising and amazing thing about
this textual evidence, is that the 10th century A.D., Masoretic text
is in substantial agreement with the text of Isaiah, that has been
buried for two thousand years. The two texts are in amazing
agreement, except for a number of minor punctuation-type
variations.62

In addition, Dr. T. Holland writes in Crowned with Glory,

Until recently, the most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew

Old Testament dated to the ninth century. This has changed with
the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 168 BC
to about 68 AD. The scrolls provide us with Hebrew manuscripts
more ancient than the previous manuscripts by one thousand
years. What is interesting to the student of textual criticism and
the believer in Biblical preservation is that the majority of Bibli-
cal manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the
Masoretic Text. This further provides evidence of the texts cred-
ibility and testifies to the accuracy of the Hebrew scribes in their
reproduction of biblical manuscripts throughout the ages. Conse-
quently, it establishes the preservation of the Old Testament
text in Hebrew by God.

The earliest Biblical fragments among the Scrolls come from

the book of Leviticus (1QLev.a) and add support to the antiquity
of the Masoretic Text. These fragments encompass Le 19:31-34;
20:20-23. There is but one minor variant from the Masoretic Text
found in Le 20:21. The Masoretic Text uses the Hebrew word hoo
while the Dead Sea Scrolls uses the Hebrew word he. It is the
same Hebrew word and is a personal pronoun meaning he, she,
or it. The two are used interchangeably throughout the Hebrew
Old Testament.

62 Jay P. Green, Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II (Sovereign Grace Trust Fund,
Lafayette, IN, 1992) p. 364.
 Additional manuscripts have also been found that supports
the Masoretic Text. In the early 1960s Biblical texts were discov-
ered during the excavation of Masada, the renowned rock fortress
where Jewish zealots made a successful last stand against the
Roman army after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These
texts were approximately nineteen hundred years old, dating
slightly before 73 AD when Masada finally fell. The manuscripts
were exclusively Masoretic. To these we can also add the Geniza
Fragments which were discovered in 1890 at Cairo, Egypt. These
fragments date to the fifth century AD. They were located in a
geniza, a type of storage room for worn or faulty manuscripts. The
fragments number around 200,000 and reflect Biblical texts in He-
brew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The Biblical texts discovered support
the Masoretic Text.

In one sense, the Masoretic Text may be thought of as the

Textus Receptus (Latin for received text) of the Old Testament. In
fact, some scholars have referred to it as such. Like the Textus
Receptus of the New Testament, the Masoretic Text is based on
the majority of manuscripts and reflects the Traditional Text used.
Although there are differences found in some Masoretic Texts,
these differences are minor and usually deal with orthography,
vowel points, accents, and divisions of the text. In 1524-25, Daniel
Bomberg published an edition of the Masoretic Text based on the
tradition of Jacob ben Chayyim, a Jewish refugee who later be-
came a Christian. It was his text that was used by the translators
of the King James Version for their work in the Old Testament.
Wurthwein notes that the text of ben Chayyim was looked upon as
almost canonical, and was considered the authoritative Hebrew
text.63

In light of this information, how can Dr. R. Price (previously quoted p.

16 ) make the claim that Gods clear statements of preservation do not

require that every inspired word must likewise be preserved

outside the autographs.

63 Dr. Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory, The Bible from Ancient Text to Autho-
rized Version (SwordSearcher, Version 4.6, Broken Arrow, OK) Chapter 6.
 Liberals would rather cast doubt-producing remarks about the preser-
vation of the Hebrew text by making suppositions about preservation in
spite of Gods words, which cannot be proved. For example, Jobes and Sil-
va say that prior to the alleged rabbinic standardization of the Hebrew text
after 70 A.D. that:

From the time that, say, the prophecies of Isaiah were writ-
ten down to the time of rabbinic standardization, more than eight
centuries transpired. It is only reasonable to assume that compet-
ing forms of the book of Isaiah would have existed during the long
stretch.64 [my emphasis, HDW]

To the credit of Jobes and Silva, however, they do admit when discuss-
ing the short Greek version of Jeremiah compared with the longer Jeremiah
text of the Masoretic Text that:

One must remember, however, that the conclusions offered

by scholars rest on a very small sample of actual Hebrew text
and a great deal on a reasonable, but nonetheless hypothetical,
reconstruction.65 And Only by appreciating the condition of the
preserved fragments and the nature of the reconstruction can one
understand the tentativeness of any conclusion about the relation-
ship of 4QJerb,d to the Greek Jeremiah and the MT.66

THE DEBUNKED CANONS OF MODERNISTIC

TEXTUAL CRITCS
In addition, Jobes and Silva are brave to recommend the use of the
canons of textual critics, which are debunked by the likes of modernistic
unbelieving textual critics such as Kurt Aland and K. W. Clark.67 Those
canons emanate from the wells of infidelity of modernistic textual critics
such as Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort; and include canons such as in-
trinsic probability, transcriptional probability, and genealogy. Jobes
64 Jobes and Silva, op. cit., p. 148.
65 Ibid, Jobes and Silva, p. 175.
66 Ibid, Jobes and Silva, p. 176.
67 Williams, op. cit., pp. 191-196, 215.
and Silva recommend them in chapter 6 (the number for man in Scripture)
as reliable tools for reconstructing the text of the Septuagint. They rein-
force their recommendations with the warning:

the fact that canons of textual criticism are often misused

leads some scholars to minimize their importance and even to
suggest that they should be jettisoned. That would be a serious
mistake.68

They quote Westcott and Horts New Testament in the Original Greek,
stating:

Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment

upon readings.69

Surely they must know that Westcott and Hort knew very little about
the history or genealogy of documents because they never did the genea-
logical studies. They lied.70

DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES QUOTE THE

SEPTUAGINT?
Jobes, Silva and many other liberals conclude in several passages in In-
vitation to the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles quoted the so-called
Septuagint. They state:

the New Testament writers sometimes used expressions

found in the Septuagint to draw the readers mind to specific
passages of Old Testament ScriptureClearly Paul is using vo-
cabulary from the Greek version of Isaiah 45:23Third, the New
Testament writers frequently quote the Greek Old Testament di-
rectlyperhaps as many as three hundred times.71

68 Jobes and Silva, op. cit., p. 129.

69 Ibid. p. 132 (Jobes and Silva).
70 Williams, op. cit., pp. 191-194.
71 Ibid, p. 23-24.
 And they quote Richard N. Longenecker, saying:

the citations by Jesus are strongly Septuagintal.72

Many others have chanted this refrain, ignoring sound evidence against
the proposition. For example, Craig A. Evans, writing in The Canon Debate,
said:

Jesus scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree

with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew. Jesus
quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and
meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7).73

Yet, stuck in the middle of a technical paragraph are these comments by

Craig A. Evans, which demonstrate duplicity:

Of course, agreements with the Septuagint no longer re-

quire us to think that Jesus read or quoted the Septuagint. Thanks
to the Bible scrolls of the Dead Sea region, we now know that
there were Hebrew Vorlagen underlying much of the Greek Old
Testament.74

There is no requirement at all, and not only that, there is NO evidence

that Jesus or the Apostles quoted the Septuagint. Dr. D. A. Waite, DBS Pres-
ident, Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, Secretary of the DBS, and Dr. Floyd Jones have
decisively defeated the claim that the Lord Jesus Christ quoted from the
Septuagint. However, Craig goes on to say that Jesus quotations

agree with some Greek versions against others.

However, his conclusion is sadly depreciating of our Lord and the pre-
served Scripture. Craig says:
72 Ibid, p. 193.
73 Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, The Canon Debate, (Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, MA, 2002) Chapter 11 by Craig A. Evans, p. 192.
74 Ibid. p. 192.
 Jesus use of the Bible attests the diversity of the textual tra-
dition that now, thanks to the Scrolls, is more fully documented.75
[my emphasis, HDW]

Apparently, Craig means that Jesus quoted from several different text
types because he read and studied several different versions. Oh how sad!
According to Craig, the LORD and Creator of the universe had to resort to
many books to determine which quote He was to use; or perhaps He left
just a summary message from all that He had read. This would agree with
Samuel Schnaiters infamous statement:

With regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly

declares anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the manu-
script copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is con-
cerned. Some have deduced such supernatural guidance from
Scripture. They note passages that promise Gods Word shall
never perish or be lost. However, such promises of preservation
in view of the wording variations must apply only to the mes-
sage of Gods Word, not its precise wording76 [my emphasis,
HDW]

Jesus, the authorizer of the Bible, said,

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away. [Mat. 24:35]

Therefore, did the Lord Jesus Christ quote the Septuagint or did he
quote the Hebrew Old Testament. Dr. Waite clearly says:

The Old Testament Hebrew Text Was Authorized by

Jesus. Not only was the Scripture accumulated by Jews, but it
was authorized by Jesus. Jesus Christ authorized the traditional
Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text. Though we have looked at
some of these verses under the subject of Bible preservation,
75 Ibid.
76 Schnaiter, Samuel, Relevancy of Textual Criticism, 1980. Bob Jones University
we will look at them once more from a slightly different aspect.

a. Verses Teaching This Position.

(1) Matthew 4:4. Jesus was speaking to the devil and refut-
ing him with Scripture:

"But He answered and said, IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not

live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God."

As we said before, "it is written" is in the perfect tense, mean-

ing it has been written in the past and stands written now, pre-
served until the present time. So the Lord Jesus Christ AUTHO-
RIZED the Old Testament He had in His hand. The first books of
the Old Testament were originally written by Moses around 1500
B.C. The Old Testament Hebrew Words were preserved for 1,500
years and the Lord Jesus said, "it is written." This means that the
WORDS OF GOD have been written down in the past and these
very WORDS have been preserved down to the present time, and
they stand written NOW as they were at the first. This is the very
essence of BIBLE PRESERVATION!

(2) Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus speaks about the "law or the

prophets." This is a technical term referring to the traditional Mas-
oretic Hebrew Old Testament text. There are three divisions in the
Old Testament: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Some-
times the expression, "law and prophets," refers to all three divi-
sions. The Law (the torah) refers to the first five books; the Proph-
ets (the naviim) refers to both the former and the latter Prophets;
and the Writings (the kethuvim) refers to the Psalms and the rest
of the books. Here in verses 17 and 18 Jesus said,

"(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the LAW, or the

PROPHETS: . . . (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
Law, till all be fulfilled."
 Jesus said of the words, letters, and even parts of the letters
found in the Hebrew Bible in His day, that no jot or tittle would be
eliminated, effaced, or changed in the slightest manner until all
was fulfilled. So He put His AUTHORIZATION on the traditional
Masoretic Hebrew text He had in His day.

(3) Luke 24:27. When the Lord Jesus Christ talked to the
disciples on the road to Emmaus, He taught them:

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expound-

ed unto them the things concerning Himself."

Here is the phrase "Moses and all the prophets." It leaves

off the "writings," but again, this was referring to the threefold di-
vision of the Hebrew Bible: Law, Prophets and Writings. That is
AUTHORIZATION by the Lord Jesus of the traditional Masoretic
Old Testament Hebrew text that was present in His day.

(4) Luke 24:44.

"And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake
unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPH-
ETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning Me."

The Greek word "written" is gegrammena, the perfect parti-

ciple: that which was written in the beginning and is continuously
being preserved and stands written today. The phrase "in the
Psalms" makes it the complete threefold division of the Hebrew
canon: the law of Moses (Torah); the prophets (Naviim); and the
Psalms or Writings (Kethuvim). It is called the "TANACH" today by
the Jews, taking the "TA" for "TORAH," the "NA" from "NAVIIM,"
and the "CH" for "KETHUVIM." This is the one abbreviation for
the entire Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. He put His hand
on the entire Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text that ex-
isted then and AUTHORIZED it. Many people may ask, "Didn't
the Lord Jesus Christ use the Septuagint Version of the Old Testa-
ment? Wasn't He referring to that?" No, he was not. He referred
to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The Septua-
gint did not have that division at all. In fact, aside from the Apoc-
rypha contained in the Septuagint, the order is LAW, PSALMS,
and PROPHETS instead of, as the Hebrew, LAW, PROPHETS &
PSALMS. As you can see, the Septuagint has the order of books
much as we have in our Bibles today. The Hebrew does not have
the same order; it ends with the book of 2 Chronicles.

b. Quotations Explaining This Position. Christ appealed

unreservedly to the traditional Hebrew text.

(1) A Quotation from Dr. Edward Hills. Here is a quotation

from Dr. Edward Hills, who has written extensively on the subject
of the Bible.

"During His earthly life, the Lord Jesus appealed unreserv-

edly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matthew 22:42,
John 20:44 ff), thus indicating His confidence that this text had
been accurately transmitted. Not only so, but He also expressed
this conviction in the strongest possible manner, `. . . till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law till all be fulfilled,' (Matthew 5:18.) . . . Here our Lord Jesus as-
sures us that the Old Testament in common use among the Jews
during His earthly ministry was an ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWOR-
THY REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WRITTEN
BY MOSES AND OTHER . . . WRITERS." [BELIEVING BIBLE
STUDY, by Dr. Edward Hills, pp. 5-6].

The Lord Jesus Christ never refuted any text, any word,
or any letter in the Hebrew Old Testament. He didn't say, "Now
Moses was misquoted here, it should have been this." He offered
no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm
sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands written!
His stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew text. It is AU-
THORIZED by Jesus. He did not authorize the Septuagint, the
Latin Vulgate, some scribal tradition, Josephus, Jerome, the Syri-
ac version, or any other document!
 (2) A Quotation from Dr. Robert Dick Wilson. Here is a
quotation from Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, a Presbyterian, and a
teacher there at Princeton Seminary before the flood of Modern-
ism came in. Henry Corey reflected on the life of Dr. Robert Dick
Wilson, a man who had mastered some forty-five languages and
dialects and who was a staunch defender of the doctrine of ver-
bal inspiration of Scripture. Corey affirmed that Wilson accepted
as accurate the Masoretic Hebrew text. Corey, quoting Wilson,
wrote:

"The results of those 30 years' study [that is what Wilson

wrote of his own study of Scripture in the Hebrew] which I have
given to the text has been this: I can affirm that there's not a page
of the Old Testament in which we need have any doubt. We can
be absolutely certain that substantially we have the text of the
Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles had and which was in
existence from the beginning." [WHICH BIBLE, 1st edition, by Dr.
David Otis Fuller, pp. 80-81].

Here is a man who studied, and studied, and found the Mas-
oretic Hebrew text to be accurate and solid. So I see no reason
why we should have any other foundation for the Old Testament
than the Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KING JAMES
BIBLE, the Daniel Bomberg edition, edited by Ben Chayyim-
-the 2nd Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25.

c. Alternative to Believing This Position? You might say,

what is the alternative? What if you do not accept the Daniel
Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text on which the
KING JAMES BIBLE is based as the authoritative Hebrew text
from which to translate? The alternative, quite logically, would be
to accept some other basis. What other basis are you going to
use? Are you going to use the Kittel Biblia Hebraica (BHK) which
was based upon the same text as the KING JAMES BIBLE in
1906 and 1912, and then was revised and scrapped for another
Hebrew text in 1937? Or are you going to use the 1967/77 Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) which is a revised Kittel? If you're
not going to use the base that is printed in the defective Hebrew
text at the top of the page in either BHK or BHS, are you going
 to use some of these changes in the footnotes--20,000 to 30,000
of them? If so, which ones are you going to use? Are you going
to use only the ones they used in the NEW KING JAMES VER-
SION? Only the ones they used in the NEW AMERICAN STAN-
DARD VERSION? Only the ones they used in the NEW INTER-
NATIONAL VERSION? Are you going to use 25% of them? 50%
of them? Or are you going to use all of them? Or are you going to
become a doubter, thinking that we don't really know what the Old
Testament is? Are you going to take the position that "We can't be
certain of the Hebrew Old Testament, so we must doubt all of it"?
Satan is the master of deceitful doubting and he is the author
of all this confusion. Once you forsake a standard, you're adrift
in a sea of doubts. There's nothing to take its place. Young Chris-
tians and people in the pews that have not been saved too many
years might say, "If there's all this bickering and fighting among
the theologians and pastors as to the right Hebrew Old Testament
text to use, I give up and throw up my hands." The devil wins if
he can plant the seeds of confusion and doubts into the hearts of
men and women as well as boys and girls.

After much study, thinking, and praying about this subject,

I have personally arrived at a strong conviction that I will not
budge from the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text on which our
KING JAMES BIBLE is based. That is it. I'm not going to move. I
don't want to change anything. We're going to stand right there.
Somebody's got to stand. Martin Luther said, "Here I stand; I
can do no other." He wasn't going to move from salvation by faith
(sola fide), salvation by grace (sola gratia) and salvation only by
the Scripture (sola scriptura). He wasn't going to follow the Pope.
He wasn't going to follow the decrees of the Church Councils. He
was standing on the Word of God alone! Though we might not be
Lutherans like Martin Luther, we must not budge either. If we do,
we are like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed.77

The truth is that there is no pre-Christian era Septuagint (OT Greek

Translation) that was allegedly translated from the Hebrew OT in Alexan-
dria, Egypt in the third century B. C., which the Lord Jesus Christ and the
apostles used. There may be an idiomatic translation of a few books such as
the Pentateuch, but there is no evidence of a formal equivalent translation of
77 Waite, op. cit., Defending the King James Bible, p. 32-37.
the Old Testament. Furthermore, Dr. Floyd Jones states unequivocally that:

There exists no verses that any New Testament writer quot-

ed from any Greek manuscript written prior to 120 A.D.

Not only does he make the statement above, but also his frustration is
reflected in the following statement:

Thus we stand perplexed and frustrated. We have examined

the origins of the LXX and found them lacking, full of fable, myth,
and legend. Now we stand deceived and misled, having been told
that a B.C. Septuagint is available for use only to find that such an
ancient document does not actually exist anywhere in the world.78

It is being proclaimed that a Greek text of the minor prophets found in

the caves of the Judean desert is an important link in the textual history of
the G. However, the findings in the cave have been dated around 132-135
A. D.; and so, it could be one of the known Christian era Greek translations
such as the Quinta (see below).79
Why dont those scholars struggling with such profound confusion sur-
rounding the G (their new name for the misnomer, Septuagint) simply
drop the anxiety of trying to reconstruct an imaginary text and discover
that his yoke is easy and [his] burden is light. Yes, some prideful posi-
tions and some filthy lucre may have to be abandoned, but the bondage
to pseudo-science and pseudo-history will be relieved and the hours wasted
on nonproductive labour can be turned to assisting brokenhearted people.
C. H. Spurgeon spoke about the modernists and their duplicity and
removing the ancient landmark. He said:

We have lived to see a certain sort of menwho seek to

teach, nowadays, that God is a universal Father, and that our
ideas of His dealing with the impenitent as Judge, and not as a
Father, are the remnants of antiquated error. Sin, according to
these men, is a disorder rather than an office, an error rather than
78 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 19.
79 Op. Cit. Jobes and Silva, p. 171-172.
 a crime. Love is the only attribute they can discern, and the full-
orbed Deity they have not known. Some of these men push their
way very far into the bogs and mire of falsehood, until they inform
us that eternal punishment is ridiculed as a dream. In fact, books
now appear which teach us that there is no such thing as the
vicarious sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. They use the word
atonement, it is true: but, in regard to its meaning they have re-
moved the ancient landmark. They acknowledge that the Father
has shown His great love to poor sinful man by sending His Son,
but not that God was inflexibly just in the exhibition of His mercy,
nor that he punished Christ on behalf of His people, nor that, in-
deed, God ever will punish anybody in His wrath, or that there is
such a thing as justice apart from discipline. Even sin and hell are
but old words employed henceforth in a new and altered sense
These are the new men whom God has sent down from Heaven
to tell us that the apostle Paul was all wrong, that our faith is vain,
that we have been quite mistaken, and that there was no need for
propitiating blood to wash away our sins: our sins needed disci-
pline, but penal vengeance and righteous wrath are quite out of
the question! When I thus speak, I am free to confess that such
ideas are not boldly taught by a certain individual whose volume
excites these remarks, but as he puffs the books of gross per-
veters of the truth, I am compelled to believe that he endorses
such theology. [C.H.S. The Early Years, p. 488, O Timothy maga-
zine, Vol. 8, Issue 1 1991][my emphasis, HDW]

The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did not quote from the Septua-
gint. The LXX quoted them, and in classic allegorist fashion, the authors
changed any Greek words that did not fit their Alexandrian Gnostic and
Arian philosophy (see below). [Col. 2:8]

SO, WHAT IS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE OLD

TESTAMENT?
The questions, probabilities, possibilities, problems and use related
to the imaginary Septuagint proposed by individuals such as Karen Jobes,
Ph.D., Moises Silva, Ph.D., Henry Barclay Swete, D.D.,80 Sir Lancelot C. L.

80 Henry Barclay Swete, D.D.; Old Testament in Greek (Wipf and Stock Publishers,
Eugene, Oregon; Originally published in 1902, 2003).
Brenton,81 and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) have
been answered by men in the Dean Burgon Society as well as Dean Burgon
himself. In addition, what is so appallingly apparent in the liberals dialogue
is the paucity of discussion of the Received or Traditional Greek and the
Masoretic Text by name. They skirt the issue by glancing comments about
recensions, but never, ever discuss the possible implications of thousands
of texts from many authors and countries in many languages attesting to the
preservation of the Received Text.
Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro and Dr. Floyd Jones have written two poignant
astute documents, which are available from Bible For Today concerning
the so-called Septuagint. They resoundingly trounce the wild assumptions
of the modernistic Septuagint scholars by simple clear concise statements.
Dr. Jones makes a clear statement at the beginning of his treatise on the
Septuagint about what is known concerning the Septuagint. He states:

The Septuagint (LXX) is a very old translation of the Hebrew

Scriptures (our Old Testament) into Hellenistic Greek. This state-
ment alone is almost the only hard fact concerning this translation
that is verifiable.82

The other known fact about the misnomer, Septuagint, is that it is a

non-entity. The name is adapted from a fraudulent document, Letter of
Aristeas. The only extant Letter is an eleventh century document. Today,
the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament
Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245
A.D.).83 This is the real recension as opposed to the theoretical recensions
of the Received Greek and Hebrew Texts. Codex B is the 5th (fifth) column
of Origins Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5th
(fifth) column the LXX (See the picture on page 5 of this work). This may
be observed in the fragment of the Hexapla by Origen found at Milan, Italy
in 1896 and published in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by
81 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocarypha: Greek and English
(Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, Orginally published in 1851).
82 Floyd Jones, Th.D. Ph.D., The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis (Kings Word
Press, The Woodlands, TX 6th Edition, 2000) p.1.
83 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 19
Henry Barclay Swete D.D. in 1902.84
Dr. DiVietro says:

Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as

overt as usualThe Septuagint, as it is published today, is basi-
cally the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B.85

Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Ori-
gins time. He used the versions of the Ebonites Aquilla (c. 128), Sym-
machus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla
reconstruction,86 along with three other anonymous translations that have
become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima.87 From this point
on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint,
will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor
prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of the
second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135 A.D. by the personal letters of
Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C.
Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in
other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.88
There have been many revisions of GTO. For example, Hesychius of
Alexandria (martyred c. 311 A. D.) and Lucian of Antioch, an Arian, (mar-
tyred 311) made revisions.89 There have been dozens of revisions through the
centuries. A few of the more recent revisions are the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-
Parson, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great
Cambridge edition, and Rahlfs 1935 edition,90
Jerome (340-420 A.D.), a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo, ridi-
cules the GTO often in his letters. However, the texts he used for his trans-

84 Henry Barclay Swete, op. cit., pp. 62-63.

85 Op. Cit. DiVietro, p. 2-3. Also, see Dr. Floyd Jones statement in The Septuagint,
pp. 19, 53.
86 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 15-16.
87 Op. Cit. Jobes and Silva, p. 43.
88 Ibid. p. 171-172 (Jobes and Silva).
89 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 17.
90 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 51.
lations for Rome were of the Alexandrian text type.91 Before reading the
following quotes from Jeromes works, recall he is removed from Origin
(182-251 A.D.) by over 150 years. A comparison is to imagine a student
in 2005 trying to reconstruct a particular history in 1850 in America with-
out the aid of computers, phones, extensive libraries, airplane travel, and
other modern conveniences. In addition, we must remember Jerome was
opposed to the independence of local churches from Rome represented by
the Waldensians.92 Lastly, he was obviously duped by the fraudulent Letter
of Aristeas, which was allegedly commented on by the Alexandrian Aristo-
bulus, the Neo-plantonist Philo, and the Roman historian, Josephus the Jew.
They all add embellishments to the story of the Letter.
Dr. Phil Stringer, President, Landmark Baptist College, states:

Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was de-

veloped by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different
Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He
disputed Augustines assertion that the apostles usually quoted
from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often
dont match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New
Testament.93

From Jeromes writings, one can quickly ascertain that Jerome is con-
fused by the term, Septuagint, and denigrated it by the following quotes.
Jerome says:

How can the Septuagint leave out the word Nazarene if it is

unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacriledge either
to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.94

Let my critics tell me why the Septuagint introduces here the

words look thou upon me. For its rendering is as follows, My
91 Op. Cit. Willliams, p. 236.
92 Op. Cit. Williams, p. 237-239.
93 Dr. Phil Stringer, Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles? (The
Landmark Anchor, Haines City, FL,Vol. 3, Issue I, May 2005) p. 7.
94 Phillip Schaff, Translator, The Principle Works of Jerome, Letters of Jerome,
(Ages Librarian, The Nicene and Anti-Nicene Church Fathers) p. 289.
 God, my God, look thou upon me, why hast thou forsaken me.95

It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions

and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages
which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks.96

Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches,
either because it is the first of all the versions in time, made be-
fore the coming of Christ, or else because it has been used by the
apostles (only however in places where it does not disagree with
the Hebrews).97

The preceding quote reveals that Jerome was duped, also. We know the
Apostles did not quote from the imaginary (there is no solid evidence it
existed before Christ) Septuagint.

Doubtless you already possess the version from the Sep-

tuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of
students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative
form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament
can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text
of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek.98 [my
emphasis]

From the previous quote, we should now understand that the LXX is
just one of the many revisions of the GTO.

Origen, whilst in his other books he has surpassed all others,

has in the Song of Songs surpassed himself. He wrote ten vol-
umes upon it, which amount to almost twenty thousand lines, and
in these he discussed, first the version of the Seventy Translators,
then those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and lastly, a
fifth version which he states that he found on the coast of Atrium,
with such magnificence and fullness, that he appears to me to
95 Ibid. p. 292
96 Ibid. p. 293
97 Ibid. p. 293
98 Ibid. p. 364
 have realized what is said in the poem:99

However, no Greek version of the Seventy Translators has ever been

found, and specifically, no Greek B.C. Song of Songs text. In addition, Je-
rome goes on to say:

Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy
Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Mo-
ses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony
with the Hebrew than the rest.100 [my emphasis]

Surely, the previous quote makes clear the confusion surrounding the
Greek text reported by the Letter even during Jeromes days. Obviously,
he was not sure how many, if any, of the Old Testament books had been
translated. The following quote establishes that deceitful translators also
perplexed Jerome

But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and
even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have
been welcomed amongst the Greeksheretics, who, by their
deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salva-
tion, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are
expounded by churchmen; [then] ought not I, a Christian, born of
Christian parents, and who carry the standard of the cross on my
brow, and am zealous to recover what is lost, to correct what is
corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the myster-
ies of the Church, ought not I, let me, ask, much more to escape
the reprobation of fastidious or malicious readers? 101 [my empha-
sis and addition for clarity]

Remember, Origen used the judaising heretics versions to make his

revision, which is Codex B, the favorite corrupted text of the modernists.
The next quote makes it obvious that Origens Old Testament Greek text,
composed 150 years earlier than Jeromes existence, was already being
99 Ibid. p. 1014
100 Ibid. p. 1018
101 Ibid. p. 1028
called the Seventy.

I have toiled to translate [and revisesee above and below,

HDW] both the Greek versions of the Seventy, and the Hebrew
which is the basis of my own, into Latin.102 [In other words, Jerome
made his own revision. HDW.]

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of
Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scrip-
tures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the
people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one
is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long
since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new
to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find
that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour
by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has
been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and
has thus preserved its own flavor.103 [my emphasis] [Even Jerome
rejected the apocrypha included in the GTO]

In the following quote, Jerome is not clear what he means by descent

of three steps. However, his additional comments above and below lead
me to believe that he thought the three steps had corrupted the Seventy.
The comments in the middle of Jeromes quote to follow are made so that
there is no ambiguity. It is interesting in the quote to follow that Jerome con-
firms Dean Burgons comments concerning the variety of texts on p. 16

I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into

Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent
of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or
why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and
the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which
had apostolic approval. [In other words, even though it is cor-
rupted Jerome will no longer fight his adversaries, HDW]

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubt-

102 Ibid. p. 1028
103 Ibid. p. 1029
 edly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Mat-
thew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel
of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew char-
acters. [This is denied. There is no evidence Matthew wrote in He-
brew. HDW] We must confess that as we have it in our language it
is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed
into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I
pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names
of Lucian and Hesychius,, and the authority of which is perversely
maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that
these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after
the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New,
for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages
of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore
promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to
be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manu-
scripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great
divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I
have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have correct-
ed only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning,
I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.104

THE AGENDA CONCLUDED

So why are scholars spending millions of hours and millions of dol-
lars to reconstruct a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which
are often written or corrected by unbelievers? There have been many rea-
sons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling
the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been
missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as
the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under
authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle
John record these words for us, Never man spake like this man, [Jn. 7:46]
because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda
of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of Gods words
because Never man spake like this man. His true words frighten men, be-
cause if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have
104 Ibid. p. 1020-1021
to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan
and man have fought this authority from the beginning.
If the truth about the Received Texts (Masoretic and Greek Traditional
Text) can be discredited by assumptions and theories, then men can claim
we have no absolute authority. Scholars are free to make up their own texts
to promote their philosophies. They are free to ignore the precision (jot and
tittle) and they are free from following precisely the ark of the covenant
(see the Introduction to this work)
Dr. Phil Stringer in a recent newsletter gave an opinion why so many
scholars [are] so devoted to the Septuagint. He states:

Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septua-
gint to justly include the apocrypha in their Bibles. Their rea-
soning goes like this: Christ used and honored the Septuagint,
the Septuagint includes the apocrypha, so Christ honored and
authorized the apocrypha. Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever
included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only
source the Catholics have for justifying their canon.105

The author of this paper is certain that Dr. Stringers reason is correct.
However, the underlying spiritual problem exhibited by the Catholic reli-
gion is the refusal to come under Gods authority. They would rather place
their (mans) tradition on equal footing (as they stated at the Council of
Trent), and reject the authority of His preserved words. For anyone to claim
the GTO (Origens Greek Text) is the word of God in light of the confu-
sion surrounding the text as well as the text exhibiting a very loose, cor-
rupted translation is very suspect. Dr. Stringer is correct when he states:

After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of
Scripture, why should we?...If Christ used the Septuagint then you
can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your
own translation.106 [specific is another word for precise, HDW]

Dr. Floyd Jones in his book asks: Why then do conservatives uphold the
105 Ibid. p. 5
106 Ibid.
LXX? Dr. Jones answer to his own question is (to summarize) that con-
servatives fear that the Received Text cannot be supported by scholarship,
history, and internal proof without THE GTO.107
Dr. Phil Stringer in his article asks: But why are so many evangelicals
devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof? Dr. Stringers answer
to his own question is:

Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted

as scholarly and educated by the world (the Catholics and the
modernists).108

One cannot escape the reason for the fall of man even in these situ-
ations. If man cannot receive [a]n inerrant (without error), verbal (each
word), plenary (every word), inspired (God breathed, infallible (will not
fail), Word of God,109 as his sole authority with all its life giving promises,
he will be insecure and rely on mans words or self..
Finally, if we even use the misnomer, Septuagint or LXX, we are in a
way affirming the existence of a document needed by the liberals to pro-
mote their theories of recensions, to allow them to construct a text more
in line with their philosophies, and to assist them in rejecting the authority
of a legal document, the words of God. Let us stop using the misnomer and
give the text of Origen, principally Codex B another name, the Greek Text
of Origen, the GTO.
The Scripture establishes some harsh warnings about the sanctity of the
LORDs words in many ways and in many verses. For example, the LORD says
near the beginning of the Scripture:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither
shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the command-
ments of the Lord your God which I command you. [Deut. 4:2]

And near the middle of the 66 books of the Bible, he says:

107 Op. Cit. Jones, p. 35-37

108 Op. Cit. Stringer, p. 6
109 Dr. Harry E. Carr, This I Believe A Study in Systematic Theology, (The Land-
mark Anchor, Landmark Bible College, Haines City, FL.) p. 12.
 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou
be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6]

And he repeats the following well known admonition at the end of the
Bible:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book. [Rev. 22:18-19]

I would offer for your consideration a passage in Psalm 19 below,

which augments the three passages above, and adds characteristics to the
character of the preserved words of God that are often scoffed at by most
liberals and modernists.
The American Dictionary of the English Language from 1828 lists sev-
eral definitions for character, which are apropos to the discussion in this
work. For example:

A mark made by cutting or engraving, as on stone, metal or

other hard material; hence, a mark or figure made with a pen or
style, on paper, or other material used to contain writing; a letter,
or figure used to form words, and communicate ideas. Characters
are literal, as the letters of an alphabet; numeral, as the arithmeti-
cal figures; emblematical or symbolical, which express things or
ideas; and abbreviations

and

The peculiar qualities, impressed by nature or habit on a

person, which distinguish him from others; these constitute real
character, and the qualities which he is supposed to possess, con-
stitute his estimated character, or reputation. Hence we say, a
character is not formed, when the person has not acquired
stable and distinctive qualities.

and
 An account, description or representation of any thing, exhib-
iting its qualities and the circumstances attending it;

and

The manner of writing; the peculiar from of letters used by

a particular person. [my emphasis, HDW]

The Greek word, carakth = charaktAr, is used in only one place in

Scripture, but what a powerful place to use it. Hebrews 1:3 states:
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express im-
age [charakter] of his person, and upholding all things by the word
of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS

The character of the Lord Jesus Christs words is the expressed im-
age of Him. [See the quotes from Websters Dictionary above] Psalm 19
outlines the characteristics of Gods words broken into eight perfections
and eight performances of His Words. This uniqueness of His words,
compared with the words of any other book in history, insures that they will
accomplish His goals and will not return void. Our Lord requires that His
words are not to return, void [Isa 55:11]. His Book is not like any other
book.
The character of His words is diametrically opposed to the modernis-
tic, philosophical textual critics belief about the character of Gods words.
They assume and conjecture that the Words of God need to be reconstruct-
ed. Their proclamations exalting the subjective rules of reconstruction
such as intrinsic probability and transcriptional probability are demol-
ished by the insights and truths in Psalm 19 and throughout the remainder
of His Book.
The liberals of today do not seem to be able to sense the reality of the
preservation of His words. God said His words would endure forever [Psa.
12:6-7, Mat. 24:35, 1 Pe. 1:23-25 and many many other places]. Our prayer
is that the rebellious would come under authority. Simply listen to His
words. The old adage, seeing is believing, is contrary to Gods ways. The
modern textual critic proclaims that the evidence, which he sees in the
textual history routes, is contrary to those who proclaim preservation. The
words of God proclaim that hearing comes first in Gods ways, not seeing.
[John 9:25] The Scripture loudly declares, faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God [Rom 10:17]. We, who defend His preserved
words, would pray that the existentialists of todays world, who proclaim
that truth is the ring of genuineness,110 a feeling, a communication
with the cosmos, a message received through a universal humanistic con-
sciousness, or a medium delivered legitimacy, would listen and hear
Gods revealed Truth.
Isaiah 55:6-9
Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him
while he is near: 7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrigh-
teous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon.
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9For as the heavens are higher
than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my
thoughts than your thoughts.

And so, ignoring these verses, the modernists ignore several important
concepts such as the overwhelming evidence of the two routes in textual
history. One route is like a river and wherever you sample along the river,
the many samples are the same, whether it is the Received Greek or Hebrew
text. Speaking about the Greek Received text, Dr. Waite says it like this:

Erasmus at Basle simply selected manuscripts from the

manuscript river of the traditional text (which is the text of the lat-
er Uncials, of the Cursives, of the early church fathers quotations,
110 Op. Cit. Williams, p. 211(The Lie That Changed The Modern World). This was
another canon of textual criticism used by Westcott and Hort to determine if a verse, read-
ing, or text was the correct wording of a disputed passage. Dean Burgon made light of the
principle.
 and of the Lectionaries). These are the quotations and the manu-
scripts which he took. The Traditional Text (the Textus Receptus)
is like a river; wherever you take a sample, it is virtually the same
text. The stream of the Traditional Text started with the apostolic
times. Its a river that runs down through history. All Erasmus did
was to pick up some manuscripts from that river, all of which are
basicly the same. They are virtually identical manuscriptsexcept
for the Westcott and Hort type of 45 or so.

Erasmus picked up his manuscripts from Basle, Switzerland.

When working on his Complutensian Polyglot, Cardinal Ximenez
picked his up from Spain and various places. Yet the Erasmus text
and the Complutensian Text are virtually identical. [my emphasis,
HDW]

The second route is entirely different. It has small streams emanating

from many corrupters and revisers; and only a few bad samples of manu-
scripts. The GTO, a hodgepodge of dissimilar and very limited number of
old manuscripts, is the name given to the classic representations of the route
characterized by rescriptus (written-over), corrupted, revised, and doctored
manuscripts. The route is called a family to obscure the limited number of
manuscripts. The modern textual critic loves to obscure these few manu-
scripts behind a scholarly faade of alleged textual families. When this au-
thor began studying the issue, the names of the variety of manuscripts called
the LXX were perplexing. The association of the LXX with modernists
favorite manuscripts called Codex B Vaticanus and Codex x,Aleph,
or Sinaiticus was not appreciated for several years. The reasons are now
clear. First, the modernists textual critic must disconnect the names of the
manuscripts B and Aleph from the LXX to obscure the known depravity
of the source texts (B and Aleph) from the GTO. Second, most articles, or
books written about the Septuagint or the LXX by modernists, immedi-
ately confess to the confusion associated with the LXX; and therefore the
authors cannot have very poor manuscripts associated with the LXX. They
would appear foolish. Third, In order to further hide the truth, most articles
or books by modernists about Codex B, Codex Aleph or similar codi-
ces, such as the Alexandrinus (A) Codex, extol the superiority of the texts
with such glowing terms as the oldest and best, and the closest to the
original. If the codices of the LXX are called the Aleph or B, they cannot
obscure their extreme deficiencies, although they try by their alleged claims
of the importance of Aleph and B. Fourth, after centuries of grappling with
the LXX, everyone agrees that there is no consistency in the meaning of the
LXX. In other words, does the name, LXX, refer to the Greek translation
of the Old Testament, or does it refer to the Greek Old Testament and New
Testament, or to the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch, the first five books
of the Bible.
There is only one true, consistent family of manuscripts. The great
preponderance (99%) of the manuscripts are the Received Text (RT). The
textual recontructionists would rather throw all MSS (including the 1% of
poor manuscripts) into the pot, mix them up, and pull out their estimate
of the right words and phrases, which in reality amounts to further decon-
structionism. If the textual critic would take just a moment to contemplate
Satans technique revealed in the Garden of Eden and apply it to the TWO
MSS ROUTES, he would soon recognize that the VAST MAJORITY of
the differences in the one family of manuscripts, called the RT, are OR-
THOLOGICAL. This is certainly not the case for the GTO and the texts
related to the GTO.
In addition, the modernists [who reject the preserved, plenary, iner-
rant Scripture] ignore the evidence to follow FROM THE PRESERVED,
INFALLIBLE WORDS that God has elevated His words to the highest pin-
nacle, to the top of all mountains, to the most important of all His creations,
and to a rank above His name [Psa 138:2, KJB]. God begins His dissertation
in Psa 19 with His creation of the heavens, and He suggests to the nay-
sayers that if I can do this, is it anything to Me to preserve MY words from
this generation forever:
Psalm 19:1-14
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. 2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. 3There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard. 4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and
 their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle
for the sun, 5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6His going forth is from
the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there
is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 7The law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise
the simple. 8The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9The
fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord
are true and righteous altogether. 10More to be desired are they
than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the
honeycomb. 11Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keep-
ing of them there is great reward. 12Who can understand his errors?
cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13Keep back thy servant also
from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then
shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be ac-
ceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARACTER OF

GODS WORDS
God clearly says:
Psalm 138:2 [KJB] I will worship toward thy holy temple,
and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for
thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. [my emphasis,
HDW.]

This astounding testimony should send a shudder through the hearts of

any who would question, blaspheme, cast disparaging remarks, or do harm
to the work of the Trinity. Incidentally, the NIV gets this verse wrong, also.
The NIV translators claim the Lord elevated His name and His word above
all things in their translation. This translation is incorrect, as well as many
other new age (version) translations such as the NASB. The New Living
Translation is horrible. The KJB has it right. The Lord elevated His word
even above His character. God proclaims through His servant David in this
verse [Psa. 138:2] that man should:
 1. worship toward thy holy temple, which is the pillar and ground
of the truth [1 Tim 3:15] in this dispensation and which is the temple
where He dwells. The church, made up of lively stones [1 Pe 2:5],
is to be the repository [Psa 119:11], protector, guardian, and pub-
lisher of His words.
2. praise thy name, which He has elevated to a level that is above
every name [Phil 2:9].
3. praise thy name for thy lovingkindness, which is His mercy [Psa
40:11].
4. praise thy name for thytruth, which is His Son and His Words
[Jn. 14:6, 17:17].
5. praise thy namefor thou hast magnified thy word above all thy
name, which speaks for itself. The Hebrew word used here for
name is Mv (shem, from Strongs), used 771 times and is invari-
ably translated name or names.
In addition, Psa 19:7-11 gives eight PERFECTIONS and eight PER-
FORMANCES (8 is the number in Scripture for new beginnings) of His
words, preceded by the acknowledgment in verses 1-6 that the creation also
proclaims the mighty wonder of His words.
THE CHARACTER OF GODS WORDS
THE PERFECTIONS THE PERFORMANCES
1. It is perfect (v. 7) 1. It converts the soul (v. 7)
perfect = Mymt tamiym taw-meem' convert = bwv shuwb shoob; to
turn back (hence, away) transitively or
(literally, figuratively or morally); also
intransitively, literally or figuratively (not
(as noun) integrity, truth:--without blem-
necessarily with the idea of return to the
ish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity),
starting point); generally to retreat; often
sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly),
adverbial, again:--((break, build, circum-
whole.
cise, dig, do anything, do evil, feed, lay
down, lie down, lodge, make, rejoice,
send, take, weep)) X again, (cause to) an-
swer (+ again), X in any case (wise), X
at all, averse, bring (again, back, home
again), call (to mind), carry again (back),
cease, X certainly, come again (back), X
consider, + continually, convert, deliver
(again), + deny, draw back, fetch home
again, X fro, get (oneself) (back) again,
X give (again), go again (back, home),
(go) out, hinder, let, (see) more, X needs,
be past, X pay, pervert, pull in again, put
(again, up again), recall, recompense, re-
cover, refresh, relieve, render (again), re-
quite, rescue, restore, retrieve, (cause to,
make to) return, reverse, reward, + say
nay, send back, set again, slide back, still,
X surely, take back (off), (cause to, make
to) turn (again, self again, away, back,
back again, backward, from, off), with-
draw. <
2. It is sure (v. 7) 2. It makes the simple wise
sure = Nma 'aman; properly, to build (7)
up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; wise = Mkx chakam, to be wise
figuratively to render (or be) firm or faith- (in mind, word or act):--X exceeding,
ful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or teach wisdom, be (make self, shew self)
quiet; morally to be true or certain; once wise, deal (never so) wisely, make wiser.
(Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with 541) to <
go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, be-
lieve, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful
(of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely,
trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put),
trust, turn to the right.
3. It is right (v. 8) 3. It rejoices the heart (v. 8)
right = rvy yashar straight (literally rejoices = xms samach; prob-
or figuratively):--convenient, equity, Jasher, ably to brighten up, i.e. (figuratively) be
just, meet(-est), + pleased well right(-eous), (causatively, make) blithe or gleesome:-
straight, (most) upright(-ly, -ness). -cheer up, be (make) glad, (have, make)
joy(-ful), be (make) merry, (cause to,
make to) rejoice, X very. <
4. It is pure (v. 8) 4. It enlightens the eyes (v. 8)
pure" = rb bar bar from 1305 (in its vari- enlightens = rwa 'owr ore a primitive
ous senses); beloved; also pure, empty:-- root; to be (causative, make) luminous
choice, clean, clear, pure. (literally and metaphorically):--X break of
day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show)
light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shin
5. It is clean (v. 9) 5. It endures forever. (v. 9)
clean = rwhj tahowr; pure (in a physi- endures dme `amad; to stand, in vari-
cal, chemical, ceremonial or moral sense):-- ous relations (literal and figurative, in-
clean, fair, pure(-ness). transitive and transitive):--abide (behind),
appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue,
dwell, be employed, endure, establish,
leave, make, ordain, be (over), place, (be)
present (self), raise up, remain, repair, +
serve, set (forth, over, -tle, up), (make to,
make to be at a, with-)stand (by, fast, firm,
still, up), (be at a) stay (up), tarry. <
6. It is true (v. 9) 6. . It is righteous
true = tma 'emeth; stability; (figura- righteous = qdu tsadaq; to be (causa-
tively) certainty, truth, trustworthiness:-- tively, make) right (in a moral or forensic
assured(-ly), establishment, faithful, right, sense):--cleanse, clear self, (be, do) just(-
sure, true (-ly, -th), verity. ice, -ify, -ify self), (be turn to) righteous(-
ness). <
7 It is desired (v. 10) 7. It is sweeter than honey
desired dmx chamad; to delight in:- or the honey comb sweeter =
-beauty, greatly beloved, covet, delectable qwtm mathowq maw-thoke' or mathu-
thing, (X great) delight, desire, goodly, lust, wq {maw-thook'}; from 4985; sweet:--
(be) pleasant (thing), precious (thing). sweet(-er, -ness).

8. It is warning 8. It is rewarding to keep

warning = rhz zahar; to gleam; figura- them
tively, to enlighten (by caution):--admonish, keep = mv shamar, to hedge about (as
shine, teach, (give) warn(-ing). < with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to pro-
tect, attend to, etc.:--beward, be circum-
spect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self),
mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve,
regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay)
wait (for), watch(-man).

rewarding = bqe `eqeb; a heel, i.e.

(figuratively) the last of anything (used
adverbially, for ever); also result, i.e. com-
pensation; and so (adverb with preposition
or relatively) on account of:--X because,
by, end, for, if, reward.

CONCLUSION
One of the great errors of the modernists is that they presume God did
not or is not able to do as He proclaimed in His words. (The result is found
on page 51 of this work.)
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.
 In order to claim that he did not preserve His words they twist the clear
and plain meaning of His words to make them say what they presume or
surmise is true. Another way of saying this is that they practice eisoge-
sis, reading into the Scripture what they want it to say. In Psa. 19:12 the
psalmist declares his frustration with committing his errors saying, Who
can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults, when Gods
words are clearly available and not far away. He PROCLAIMS the glory
of God, [v. 1] (which in this Psalm is Gods words by which He spoke into
existence the creation, v. 1-6) whose words are to cleanse thou me from
secret faults and to keep him from presumptuous sins. The psalmist rec-
ognizes that only then will he be upright and innocent. He recognizes
that only then will transgressions not have dominion over me, and that
he will be free from the great transgression of pride.
Many modernists claim the RT (TR) and KJB supporters are cultist,
filled with pride ignoring the evidence of history. How wrong they are.
We are just willing to come under authority, the authority of the preserved
words of God and defend the preserved words, without shame or guilt. The
indwelling Spirit affirms the Truth. Perhaps they should take the beam out
of their eye in order to see the mote [Mat 7:4-5] (JFB says Or how wilt thou
say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a
beam is in thine own eye?) We are not filled with pride; rather we humbly
submit to and come under the authority of the received words [John 17:8] of
God. We ask, To whom do you submit? Do you submit to the reconstructed
message of man or are you willing to submit to the preserved legal docu-
ment proclaimed and exalted by our Lord with all its jots and tittles?
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.

John 12:47-48
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him
not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge
 him in the last day.

Have your received them? There is no pride left among the KJB
crowd. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of
sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. [2 Cor.
2:17] The KJB crowd has died to self and risen with the Risen Lord [Gal.
2:20] and submit to His will [2 Cor 4:2, 7, 10-11] as revealed in His pre-
served words.
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,
that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by
whose stripes ye were healed.

His words are right (cleansing) (Psa 19:8); they are a preserved legal
document, preserved by the eyes of the Lord who has kept them from cor-
ruption by those who reject authority and corrupt.
Proverbs 22:12
The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he over-
throweth the words of the transgressor.

Finally, we conclude like the Psalmist in verse 14 of the 19th Psalm:

Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,
be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

What words do you believe are acceptable in His sight? Which

words are the meditation of your heart? Are you your strength (by your
reconstructed text), or can you proclaim the words of Psa 19:14? Can you
admit that if Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever
[Hebrews 13:8] is true and that if Jesus is the Word [John 1:1] THEN
THE WORD [IS] THE SAME YESTERDAY, AND TO DAY, AND FOR
EVER? The Lord Jesus Christ promised this by saying:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away. [Matthew 24:35]
APPENDIX I: A COMPILATION OF 21 OF DR. D.
A. WAITES STATEMENTS CONCERNING IN-
SPIRATION OF THE PRESERVED WORDS
#1. "In fact, it is my own personal conviction and belief, after studying
this subject since 1971, that the WORDS of the Received Greek and Maso-
retic Hebrew texts that underlie the KING JAMES BIBLE are the very
WORDS which God has PRESERVED down through the centuries, being
the exact WORDS of the ORIGINALS themselves. As such, I believe they
are INSPIRED WORDS. I believe they are PRESERVED WORDS. I
believe they are INERRANT WORDS. I believe they are INFALLIBLE
WORDS. This is why I believe so strongly that any valid translation MUST
be based upon these original language texts, and these alone!" (Defending
the KJB, around p. 47)
#2. #145 Issue: in his Figure 3-D: he mentions: "King James Version
(Perfect translation?) (p. 29) " I have never said that the King James Bible
is a perfect translation. This would be the Dr. Peter Ruckman view. He uses
the words inerrant, and infallible when referring to the English. I use those
terms inerrant and infallible to refer to the original autographs and
to the Hebrew and Greek texts which God has preserved for us today.
Those are inspired Words in the Hebrew. Those are inspired words in
the Greek. Since God has preserved those Hebrew and Greek words I
believe by faith that those Hebrew and Greek words are inerrant and
infallible." (p. 42 of Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions
#3. #271 Issue: "Did God somehow reinspire His Word . . ." (p. 56) " I
do not believe that God reinspired His Word. The Words of God were God-
breathed in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament with a little Aramaic. The
Words of God were God-breathed in the Greek text of the New Testament.
"Theo-pneustos" means God-breathed in the Greek. God did not have to
reinspire His Word. That is not what I am talking about at all. The Textus
Receptus is the Received Text which has been received down through the
corridor of time from the apostolic age right down to the present. That does
not necessitate a reinspiration. The inspiration that was given by God
(the God-breathed words of Hebrew and Greek) was a once for all in-
spiration. Those inspired Words have been preserved down to the pres-
ent time. Dr. Glenny does not believe that God has preserved His Words.
(p. 76 of Central Seminary Refuted)
#4. #294 Issue: ". . . the false claims of anyone who says the KJV or
TR is inspired . . ." (p. 62) "We have never taken the position that the Tex-
tus Receptus is inspired in the sense of the original autographs were God-
breathed. The Textus Receptus was not God-breathed by a supernatural ex-
perience. I believe the Textus Receptus that underlies King James Bible
is a perfect copy of the original God-breathed autographs which God
has preserved. The Words of this Textus Receptus are inspired Words
because they are the exact Words of the original autographs, though
not given by the process of inspiration but by copying. The King James
Bible is not God-breathed. God did not breathe out His Words in English,
but in Hebrew, Greek and a little Aramaic." (p. 82, Central Seminary Re-
futed)
#5. "Let's be very careful about this. It is true that the process of inspira-
tion applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words the origi-
nal Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God's process of
breathing out His Words. The process has never been repeated; the manu-
scripts that we have today were not the result of the process of inspiration.
However, it can be said that the Words given originally by the process
of inspiration if they have been preserved exactly in manuscripts we
have today are inspired Words. If, then, they are the same Words that
God gave by the process of inspiration, we can refer to them as inspired
Words. To say it another way, I believe that words in the apographs (the
copies of the original manuscripts) that are accurate copies of the origi-
nal Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words can be referred to as inspired
Words. In this sense, therefore, (since they have been preserved Word
for Word) I refer to the Hebrew and Greek Words that underlie the
King James Bible as inspired Words. This is a major point that needs to
be kept clear." (p. 58, Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions)
#6. "I agree. Copies are not "inspired in the same sense as the origi-
nals." The "originals" were given by the process of inspiration. The copies,
or the apographs as we call them, were produced by the copyists. They were
not given by the Holy Spirit of God as were the originals. Once the Words
were given by the process of inspiration they become "inspired words."
I believe that the Textus Receptus Greek Text which underlies our King
James Bible's New Testament contains "inspired Words." I believe we
have "inspired Words" because I believe we have the same Words that
were given by the process of inspiration in the original manuscripts (the
autographs). (pp. 110-111 of Fundamentalist Mis-Information).
#7. "The King James Bible is the only legitimate English transla-
tion of the preserved Masoretic Hebrew text and Received Greek text
which underlie it. I believe that these Hebrew and Greek texts have
been "preserved" by God. As such, these Words are "inerrant," "infal-
lible," and the very "inspired" (God-breathed) Words God first gave
in the originals. I do not believe we should use these four terms, however,
concerning the King James Bible or of any other "translation." " (p. 16,
Fuzzy Facts From Fundamentalists on Bible Versions)
#8. "God has kept His promise by inerrantly, and infallibly pre-
serving His inspired (God-breathed) Hebrew and Greek words under-
lying our King James Bible." (pp. 16-17 Fuzzy Facts)
#9. "It is the only accurate English translation from its underlying pre-
served Words of Hebrew and Greek. Only the original Hebrew and Greek
Words and the preserved Hebrew and Greek Words underlying our
King James Bible can be referred to as "inspired" or "God-breathed"
Words." (p. 18, Fuzzy Facts)
#10. "Response #104: I don't say that the King James Bible is "given
by inspiration of God," that is, "God-Breathed." I do not believe that. The
NT Greek Words underlying our King James Bible are inspired God-
breathed Words. When Paul and Peter wrote them they were inspired,
God-breathed Words. The exact copies of these Words are still inspired
Words. I believe the preserved Masoretic Hebrew Words underlying
our King James Bible are inspired, God-breathed Words." (p. 35, Fuzzy
Facts)
 #11 "Response #118: The Hebrew and the Greek Words that under-
lie our King James Bible are inspired Words. Since they are accurate
reproductions of the inspired words they are the same inspired words
that Peter, James, and Paul had written down in the copies. I do not
believe that the King James Bible is "given by inspiration of God." It is
an English translation. We at the Bible For Today ministry and in our Dean
Burgon Society ministry believe very strongly that the only Greek text that
should be used to translate any Bible into any language of the world must
be the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. The only
accurate translation in the English language of the preserved Hebrew and
Greek Words is the superior King James Bible." (p. 39, Fuzzy Facts)
#12. "Fuzzy Fact #129: Edward Glenny wrote: "One such proponent
writes, It is my own personal conviction and belief after studying this
subject since 1971, that the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic
Hebrew texts that underlie the king James Bible are the very words
which God has preserved down through the centuries, being the exact
words of the originals themselves. As such, I believe they are inspired
words.'" " (p. 42, Fuzzy Facts)
#13. "Peter Ruckman believes there was a second work of inspiration
which I do not believe. I believe in the inspiration of the Hebrew and
Greek words. I believe God has preserved those inspired Words in the
texts which underlies our King James Bible. He does not differentiate
between my position and that of Dr. Peter Ruckman." (p. 67, Fuzzy Facts)
#14. "Response #259: I do not use the word, "inspired," ("God-
breathed"--2 Timothy 3:16) when referring to the King James Bible. I do
not use the word, "inerrant." I say it has no "translation mistakes." I say that
the Hebrew and Greek Texts that underlie it are preserved, inerrant,
infallible, inspired, and God-breathed. " (p. 96, Fuzzy Facts)
#15. "Exact Copies Are "Inspired Words" Fuzzy Fact #262: Larry
Pettegrew wrote: "Neither for versions nor for manuscripts is inspiration
to be claimed. Inspiration is claimed only for the primal sacred autograph."
(p. 88)
# 16. Response #262: The "process" of inspiration, (God's breathing-
out) was limited to the autographs. The "process" does not extend to any
translations or versions. However, exact copies of the manuscripts of those
original Words, though not given by the "process" of inspiration, are God-
breathed or inspired Words. Because of their preservation by God, I be-
lieve that the Hebrew & Greek Words underlying our King James Bible
are God-breathed or inspired Words." (pp. 96-97, Fuzzy Facts)
# 17. "Inspired Copies? Quotation #13. (p. xv) Williams asked: "The
question is were the copyists who copied these originals inspired? Were
those copies inspired?"
Comment #13. Those who were the "copyists" of the "originals" were
not "inspired." No people were "inspired" in the way the Bible uses this
term. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the words, "given by inspiration of
God" translate only one Greek word, THEOPNEUSTOS. That literally
means "God-breathed." God breathed out the original Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek Words of the Bible. God did not breathe out men. He did not
breathe out copyists. He did not breathe out translators or the ones who
copied the originals. That would be silly. God does not breathe out people.
As far as were the "copies" being "inspired," let me say this. The "cop-
ies" were not given by the process of being "given by inspiration of
God." They were given by copying. However, since those original He-
brew, Aramaic and Greek Words which were "God-breathed" are also
called "inspired Words," every exact copy of those "inspired Words"
can also be called "inspired Words," regardless of the date they were
copied or the material on which they were copied. I am convinced and
believe that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying our
King James Bible are exact copies of the original Words and therefore
can be referred to as "inspired Words." Translations of those "inspired
Words" must never be referred to as "God-breathed," "inspired of God," or
"inspired." God "breathed-out" or "inspired" Words exclusively in the lan-
guages of Hebrew, a little Aramaic, and Greek, and in no other language in
the world! " (p. 12, Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation)
#18. "As mentioned in #35 above, "Since "inspired" means "God-
breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), I do not believe that any translation is "in-
spired" or "inspired of God" or "God-breathed." The word "inspired"
(or "God-breathed") applies exclusively to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek Words that underlie our King James Bible. God did not breathe
out His Words in Spanish, French, Russian, or even English. God did breathe
out His Words in Hebrew, a little Aramaic, and Greek. Those are the God-
breathed words." (p.29, Fundamentalist Deception)
#19. "Comment #226. No "translation" was "inspired," "inspired of
God," "given by inspiration of God," or "God-breathed." I do say that ex-
act copies of the Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words are "in-
spired Words" because the autographs were God-breathed. The result-
ing Words can rightly be called "inspired" or God-breathed Words. I
differ with Bernard on this." (p. 34, Fundamentalist Deception)
#20. "As far as the perfection of the Words underlying the King
James Bible, I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underly-
ing the King James Bible are verbally and plenarily preserved, and are
inspired Words, perfect Words, inerrant Words, and infallible Words.
" (p. 110, Fundamentalist Deceptions)
#21. "Comment #312. Downey really does not know what God has
said. His "Bible" is the manuscripts all over the world that he has never seen
or held in his hands. We must know more than "God has spoken." What has
He said? Where has He said it? I believe God has spoken in the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words which underlie our King James Bible. And
the King James Bible accurately translates those inerrant, inspired,
verbally and plenarily preserved Words into English for all English-
speaking people to know what He has said in their own language." (p.
121, Fundamentalist Deception)111

EXAMPLES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE

FROM IN AWE OF THY WORD112

111 Any of the articles, books, and materials containing these quotes may be obtained
by contacting Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ, email: http://www.biblefortoday.org/ or
phone orders Orders: 1-800-JOHN 10:9
112 Riplinger, G. A., In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible,
Its Mystery and History, Letter by Letter, A. V. Publications Corp. Ararat, VA, ISBN
0-9635845-2-9
 Key Words, Word Definitions, Parallel Concepts
1. Connotation is an idea suggested by or associated with a word, e.g.
the word Alaska brings to mind cold. (p.46)
2. Denotation indicates not what a word suggests, but what it names,
e.g. Alaska is the most northwest state. [Isa. 28:9-10] (p. 46)
3. Use key words by comparing their use in various places in the Bi-
ble. (p. 46)
4. Identify words and verses which are parallel in meaning by finding
their identical surrounding words (pegs) (p. 46, my emphasis)
A. The definition may be the word next to the word.
B. The definition may be in the same verse.
C. The definition may be in the preceding or the following verse.
D. The definition may be somewhere in the chapter. (p. 49)
a. Example: purloining [Tit. 2:10] (p. 65-66)
b. Example: entering in [1 Thess 1:9] (p. 67)
5. Identify words and verses which are parallel (or direct opposites) in
meaning by finding matching parts of speech. (p. 46)
A. Expands definitions
B. Expands understanding (p. 70)
a. Example: The masculine gender of the Godhead as opposed
to the neuter gender of the New age movement. [1 Jn. 1:3, 6]
(p. 71
b. Example: Walk in the light or dance in the light with Shirley
MacLain. [Jn. 1:3, 6] (p. 71)
c. Example: What is these things in 1 Jn. 2:1. Compare 1 Jn
2:1, 7 and 1 Jn 2:3, 5 for parallel words and parts of speech
to discover these things means word. (p. 73)
d. Example: Predestinated is not who should be saved but
 how and is purposed us to be saved in Christ. [See Eph.
1:3-11]. God predestined the means of salvation (p. 81-82)
e. Example: The Rock the church is built upon is Jesus Christ,
not Peter. [(Rock) Mat. 16:18, 1 Cor. 10:4, 2 Sam. 22:2, Ps.
18:2, 31:3, 42:9, (upon) Mat. 7:24, 26:10, 27:30, Mk
13:3, (this) Mat. 3:17, 8:27, 12:23-25, etc.](p. 83-84

LEGO CONSTRUCTED CHURCH ILLUSTRAT-

ING TYPOLOGICALLY THE COMPLEXITY OF
GODS WORDS
(See this work)