By Filings on
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
LXX
English Bible Translations
KJVO

“Leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology have taken another step that the IFB KJV defenders have not… insistence that the Hebrew Masoretic Text has been kept pure in all ages like the New Testament and that therefore modern English and other Bible translations are wrong to use Septuagint readings.” - Mark Ward

Discussion

Thu, 09/26/24

Now how does this work? The Textus Receptus cites the Septuagint verbatim, but KJVO advocates are stuck advocating (a) at least their favored version of the TR is the best rendition of the NT while (b) they view the text that the TR cites in the Gospels (and elsewhere) as flawed.

I guess rhetorical fidelity has never exactly been the strong point of KJVO advocates, but this is a special way for them to show their logical weakness. I am so glad that I've had the opportunity to do copywork myself, and realize that when you have hand-copying of manuscripts, you will have variants, and that is not necessarily evidence of malfeasance.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Thu, 09/26/24

The High Priest of the KJVO heresy denied the existence of the Septuagint in a book entitled "The Mythological Septuagint" in 1996.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan