By Mediatus/Kopie eines Originalbriefes; Kopist unbekannt – Original in der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5298242
– Jeremiah 8:8
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has turned it into lies?”
This page is the research done which proves that this verse is literal and true.
Quick Links to the Verses Below
Luke 3:22 – Major Critical Corruption of Jesus’ Adoption.
1 John 5:7-8 – A corruption so famous that it has a name!
Revelation 1:11 – Criminal Corruption of the Alpha and Omega. This is a huge, “felony” forgery.
Matthew 28:19 – Changing the Baptismal Command
Use the Version of the Old Testament that God uses.
The King of Kings – 1 Timothy 6 was translated identically but it’s not identical.
Zechariah 12:10 – Making Jesus YHVH
Isaiah 9:6 – A corruption that is translated differently from the original Jewish Scriptures
2 Peter 1:1 – Using the Evidence and Common Sense to Determine the Correct Translation
Ever wondered why the same Bible verse can appear drastically different in various translations? For example, the following is Isaiah 9:6 from two different translations:
It’s not a coincidence – denominations pick and choose manuscripts that align with their beliefs. The varied content is a consequence of ancient texts being corrupted. With a multitude of conflicting manuscripts, the Bible can contain polar opposite text and be molded to suit specific narratives. The truth is, the Bible’s susceptibility to manipulation has been a long-standing issue that deserves our attention
God explains why the Bible is subject to corruption and falsification:
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. 8 “’How can you say, “We are wise because we have the word of the LORD,” when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies? (Jeremiah 8:8)
As a result, there are very significant variations in translations, interpretations, and editions of the Bible, which can lead to differences in the meaning and understanding of the text. Therefore, it’s important to be aware of these differences when using a Bible.
The King James Version and Protestant Bibles are good examples of Bibles that vary vastly from the original content.
The aim of this page is to highlight the discrepancies between the earliest known Bible manuscripts and the current versions by identifying the specific verses that have been altered over time.
Forensic Evidence Is Invaluable In Bible Research
The evidence that many of today’s Bibles do not reflect the earliest manuscripts comes from ancient evidence left by early church writers (“church fathers”), like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and others, who quoted the Bible with gusto.
In the first centuries of church history, there were many different Christian sects (sort of like denominations) in the early church with wildly differing doctrines and they each spent a ton of time writing in an effort to denounce the other. Partially because of these passionate early-church writers, and partially through evidence provided by the earliest Bible manuscripts, we have evidence that the Bible has been changed
As you’ll see from the evidence below, when the Bible was compiled (and many times since), the books were altered in many places to say things that former manuscripts never said.
Let’s start with one of the most important sentences uttered since the day of creation.
Luke 3:22, You Are My Beloved Son, Today, I have begotten you.
We cannot think of anything more criminal than changing God’s actual words but that’s exactly what happened in this case.
In most of the present-day versions of Luke, Jesus is baptized by John, and as he comes up out of the water, the Spirit descends upon him and a voice comes from heaven and says, “You are my son, in you I am well-pleased”. (Luke 3:22)
But, the way Luke now reads is not the way it read prior to the Nicaean Council. We know that Luke 3:22 was changed because, prior to the council, the only way that Luke 3:22 was ever quoted was this way:
“You Are My Beloved Son, Today, I have begotten you.”
The Bible itself bears witness to the difference between modern Bibles and ancient manuscripts, as you can see by this screenshot (below) of the ESV Bible, which notes that other Bible manuscripts said, ‘You are my beloved son; today I have begotten you.’
In addition to the evidence via the ancient manuscripts and quotes, consider the words that were said to Jesus and why they were said. God said these specific two sentences together because they both meant something important at the moment of the baptism; God was announcing to Jesus and to the world that Jesus was His son.
“You are my son. Today, I have begotten you.”
Jesus wouldn’t have needed God to announce his sonship (because he would have already known who he was) UNLESS the day of his baptism was the day that he was begotten. So, God was telling Jesus on this day that he was His son and making it clear THIS DAY you’ve been begotten.
Dr. Bart Ehrman, Bible Expert and Scholar, says,
First, even though this reading is found in only one surviving manuscript of the fifth century (our oldest manuscripts of the passages are two Greek copies that come from the middle of the fourth), the passage is quoted by church fathers of the second through fourth centuries. These church fathers lived everywhere from Rome, to Alexandria Egypt, to North Africa, to Palestine, to Gaul and to Spain. And in every single instance the church fathers quotes the verse in this alternative version: “today I have begotten you” (from Psalm 2:7). That’s pretty important: this is the form of the text they were familiar with from the manuscripts available to them (manuscripts that no longer survive, obviously) in their time and place. The earliest form of the text is the one that later made it into only one manuscript.
Why in only one? Because later scribes didn’t like this reading. When deciding which reading is older, one has to ask the following question: if a scribe changed the passage (and obviously one or more scribes did, since we have the passage in two forms) which direction was he more likely to change it? Was he more likely to change “You are my son, today I have begotten you” to say “You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” or the other way around?
… So the question is: would a scribe be more likely to change the text in such a way as to make it amenable to a heretical Christology (by quoting Psalm 2:7 at the baptism), or would he be more likely to change it in order to keep it from being used to support a heretical Christology? The answer is: almost certainly the latter.
Later scribes ‘didn’t like’ the reading as it was because it was punishable by death through the Edict against Arians. Constantine, emperor of Rome, 325 AD, created an edict that stated anyone caught with literature advocating for the Arian belief that God was only one person versus the Trinitarian formula of Three-in-One, would be put to death.
The newly Imperial Catholic doctrine (325 A.D.) stated that Jesus was not a created being, he was co-eternal with the Father, he had always existed, and had always been the Son of God. But, the way Luke 3:22 was originally written contradicts this doctrine. The old reading explicitly states, “You are My son. Today, I have begotten you.”
This is very important because the original reading means that there was a specific day that Jesus became God’s Son, he is not co-eternal, and he wasn’t always God’s son.
This original reading of this verse means that there was a specific day that Jesus was begotten of God. This meant that the official Church doctrine of the “Godhead” (which was voted on and adopted 325 A.D. at the Nicaean Council) cannot be true and so they changed the verse to agree with the newly adopted official church doctrine.
As Dr. Ehrman stated, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten you,” is the only way that Luke 3:22 was quoted for hundreds of years. Then, after the Nicaean council and Constantine’s subsequent ‘Edict against Arians‘ was made law the verse is changed to read: “You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”
The Ancient Quotes
Clement – Epistle Composed pre-70 AD
In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he says: “But concerning His Son the LORD spoke thus: ‘Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.’” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, p. 15)
This epistle mentions the sacrifices were still ongoing at Jerusalem, this means that this was written before 70 AD because in 70 AD, the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman armies ending the sacrifices. (“First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” Wikipedia )
165 AD, Justin Martyr
In a writing by Justin Martyr known as the Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXXVIII, Justin references the Gospels’ baptism accounts:
He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in theform of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, … ‘Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee.’ (Dialogue with Trypho)
In Trypho the Jew Justin quotes this again:
For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,” is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, “Worship me;” and Christ answered him, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” chap. CII.
160 AD – Clement of Alexandria
In Chapter VI of Book One, The Instructor, Clement of Alexandria says: “For at the moment of the Lord’s baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, ‘Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.’” (Ante-Nicene Fathers – CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA/The Instructor/Book I/Chapter VI,” at wikisource)
Another account is found in Clement of Alexandria, Christ, the Educator, Vol. 23 at page 25: ‘When the Lord was baptized, a voice loudly sounded from heaven, as a witness to him who was beloved, ‘Thou art my beloved son, this Day I have begotten thee.‘
After 200 AD, Origen
In Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, he writes: “None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Savior’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, ‘Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,’ this is spoken to Him by God.” (Early Christian Writings)
234 AD, Acts of Peter and Paul
In the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, it says: “Him, therefore, to whom the Father said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee, the chief priests through envy crucified.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Apocrypha of the New Testament/Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul/Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul,” Wikisource)
300 AD, Methodius
Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Concerning Chastity:
“Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, ‘Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee.’” (Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Methodius/Banquet of the Ten Virgins/Thekla/Part 9,” wikisource).
300 AD, Lactantius
Lactantius, in The Divine Institutes, says, “Then a voice from heaven was heard: ‘Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee.’ Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book IV/Chap. XV,” wikisource)
This quote begins with Faustus citing how Matthew and Luke read in 400 AD through ‘The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists‘, in Book XXIII at 313.
‘I will, for the present, suppose that this person was right in saying that the son of David was born of Mary. It still remains true, that in this whole passage of the generationno mention is made of the Son of God till we come to the baptism; so that it is an injurious misrepresentation on your part to speak of this writer as making the Son of God the inmate of a womb. The writer, indeed, seems to cry out against such an idea, and in the very title of his book to clear himself of such blasphemy, asserting that the person whose birth he describes is the son of David, not the Son of God. And if you attend to the writer’s meaning [i.e., Matthew’s meaning] and purpose, you will see that what he wishes us to believe of Jesus the Son of God is not so much that He was born of Mary, as that He became the Son of God by baptism at the river Jordan. He tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and became the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.”
Throckmorton in Gospel Parallels states that this version of the Baptismal (“this day I have begotten thee”) is found in the following ancient manuscripts: Paris Papyrus, Sinaiticus, A B, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus, “ and W. It is also found in Codex D. Almost all of them written prior to the Nicaean Council.
And in several other early church manuscripts well:
The Banquet of the Ten Virgins;
and the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
Interestingly, the Bible quotes God saying this to Jesus as well:
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten [prōtotokos] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. – Hebrews 1:5-6
The Bible foretold that God would indeed say to Jesus, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?”” but the actual account of it happening in Luke 3:22 is removed.
As Dr. Ehrman stated, and the forensic evidence supports, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten you,” is the only way that Luke 3:22 was quoted for hundreds of years. Then, after the Nicaean council and Constantine’s subsequent ‘Edict against Arians‘ was made law, the quotes stop and the verse disappears.
- Metzger, Bruce M. “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.” Oxford University Press, 2005. In this book, Metzger discusses the textual variants in Luke’s gospel, including the changes made to the baptismal account of Jesus, and notes that the revised reading was not immediately adopted by all churches.
- Ehrman, Bart D. “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.” Oxford University Press, 2011. Ehrman’s book discusses how early Christian disputes over the nature of Christ influenced the textual transmission of the New Testament, including changes made to the baptismal account in Luke.
- Brown, Raymond E. “The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI).” The Anchor Bible, vol. 29A. Doubleday, 1970. Brown notes that the revised reading of the baptismal account in Luke’s gospel was not universally adopted, and that some manuscripts continue to preserve the earlier reading (“today I have begotten you”).
1 John 5:7-8 The Most Famous Forgery of All
As far as corrupted Bible scriptures go, 1 John 5:7-8 is infamous. It is a forgery that is so well known that it has its own name: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma (“Comma” meaning: short clause).
The corrupted version of this verse first showed up in Bibles hundreds of years after the original authors were long dead and buried. Per Bible scholar and expert Dr. Bart Ehrman, this verse does not show up in any ancient manuscripts until the ‘fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighteenth centuries.’
‘These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.‘
‘From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. ‘
‘The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.
Both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century.
The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.‘
Because it was a late forgery and not present during the early church years, Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity. This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth-century Confession of Faith, and after that, it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate. – Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org
The forgery of 1 John 5:7 was specifically added to strengthen the Trinity argument. Without the forged verse, there is no clear evidence of the Trinity concept anywhere in the Bible. But it remained in the Bible and deceived people for hundreds of years until there was so much proof that even the church could no longer deny the late forged addition.
“The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight ..”
As a result, the corrupted version of this verse has been removed from most modern Bibles and very few Bibles now include this verse in the main text (relegating it to a footnote instead) because it is common knowledge that this verse is not authentic to the original manuscripts.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God 1 Cor 15:15
We cannot lie in the name of God. Knowing that a Bible verse was not there originally, and continuing to call that Bible “the word of God” is a serious offense. We should have a problem with this no matter our favorite flavor of theology. Not only is it bearing a false witness of God’s word, it’s lying in the name of the Lord.
Lying to God didn’t work out so well for Ananias and Sapphira.
Continue Reading here for heaps more evidence that this verse is a major Bible corruption.
Revelation 1:11 – A Truly Criminal Corruption
Revelation is an incredibly important book. It is the one book of the New Testament that was, without a doubt, sent from God. Its divine origins are evident in its extremely accurate prophecies which have largely been fulfilled. For example, the book of Revelation was written a little less than 2,000 years ago and hundreds of years before the Catholic Church existed but yet, it describes the Catholic Church of the end times, and that description exactly fits the Catholic Church exactly as it is today. Every detail is exactly right which means that the odds of this “Revelation” being a happy accident are nil.
Revelation is, arguably, the only book from the New Testament which proclaims to have proceeded directly from God. Along with this proclamation, and perhaps because of it, it carries a serious warning:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.” (Rev 22:18)
For this reason, out of all of the corruptions in the New Testament, the one in Revelation 1:11 is the worst, and woe to those who are guilty of its corruption.
Despite this very stern warning, the makers of some Bibles still choose to include this verse despite the evidence that the earliest manuscripts did not contain this phrase. Use this link to see that most modern Bibles refuse to include this corrupted text because scholars know that it is not the original text.
The oldest manuscripts of the book of Revelation do not contain the phrase “I am the Alpha and the Omega” in Revelation 1:11. These include Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), and Codex Vaticanus (4th century). These are some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament and they do not contain this spurious verse. In fact, the first time Revelation 1:11 included the phrase “I am the Alpha and Omega” was after the tenth century. So for 1,000 years, there are no extant manuscripts that contain the phrase “I am the Alpha and Omega” in verse 11.
As with all the corrupted Bible verses, the purpose of the corruption was to support the new Roman Imperial Religion, which officially made and proclaimed that Jesus was God at the Nicene Council. By including this phrase in this verse it appears that Jesus is saying, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” when he did not. Inserting this verse here makes it appear that Jesus is the same as the One on the throne.
Without this forgery, the book of Revelation clears up every misconception about the identity of God. A look into heaven confirms what YHVH said about Himself in Isaiah 43…namely, that He is the only God and there will never be another. The Alpha and Omega, the Almighty, LORD GOD is the One on the throne. He is the God and Father of Jesus Christ Who calls Himself: ‘HIM who was and is to come…’
Revelation also reveals Jesus’ true identity. Jesus gives himself a great many titles throughout this book, without ever mentioning that He is God. In fact, throughout Revelation, the title ‘God’ is only ever directed at the One who sits on the Throne.
Like the famed Johannine Comma, the corruption of this verse began to appear at a very late date, sometime after the tenth century.
Click here to continue reading the evidence.
The King of Kings is Jesus, Not God
Jesus is often referred to as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. And so he is. But in another place within some Bibles, it says the same thing about God. As a result, many people believe that these identical passages are confirmation that Jesus is God.
The Passage About the Unseen God
1 Timothy 6
Keep this commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the blessed and only Sovereign One—the King of kings and Lord of lords—will bring about in His own time. 16 He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion!
The Passage About Jesus as the King of Kings.
These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings; Revelation 17
Looks like the same title applies to Jesus and God, doesn’t it?
But it does not.
1.) The diagram above shows that this translation is corrupt. The original sentences were not the same, the same words were not used for each statement in the original Greek. There are differences that mean that these statements should not have been translated the same, because they are not.
The first phrase, ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ Κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, literally means “The King of those who rule as kings and the Lord of those who rule as lords.” In this context, the phrase describes someone who is not only a king and a lord but also rules over other all other kings and lords. This applies to God, the father.
The second phrase, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΚΥΡΙΩΝ, means “King of kings and Lord of lords,” which is similar but it is not the same. It is a title versus a description. This title applies to Jesus.
So 1 Timothy 6:15 should read: God, the blessed and only Ruler, The King of those who rule as kings and the Lord of those who rule as lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.
This translation also agrees with the context of the afore mentioned passage, which is describing the only God (1 Cor 8) who has never been seen.
The passage in Revelation says, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
To further illustrate the differences between the two passages and the identities of God and Jesus, the book of Revelation gives context to Jesus’ limited title as the ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. Revelation, chapter 1 verse 5, it qualifies Jesus’ dominion as King of Kings by saying, ‘Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.‘
The two statements should never have been translated the same way because Jesus and God are not the same, and neither are the passages. God rules over every king and every lord, including Jesus:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:24 NIV)
The Entire Protestant Old Testament (aka Masoretic Text) Should Be Discarded
There are versions of the two Old Testaments. The two primary versions of the Old Testament are the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). These two versions have significantly different texts, leading to very significant variations in important passages, which ultimately lead to false doctrines, and for this reason alone it should be discarded. Interestingly, the one that does not lead to false doctrines was the version quoted by God. More on that later.
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has turned it into lies?”Jeremiah 8:8
The original version is the Septuagint (or LXX.) This version was quoted almost exclusively by Jesus, who should have known which version was correct seeing how he had a direct line to Almighty God.
On the other hand, the Masoretic Text (MT) contradicts the LXX in several places and some verses are so badly botched they’ve helped the apostate church deceived the entire world, as God foretold that they would (Rev 18:23).
So the first reason to ditch the MT is that God said the scribes had turned the Torah into a lie. This means that some Old Testament texts are corrupted, which makes it crucial for God’s people to find the version that most closesly resembles the original version. This means choosing between the Masoretic Text (created c. 600 – 900 AD) or the Septuagint.
The second reason to choose the LXX is that it is the version of the Bible that God quoted.
Another reason is that many (or most) Bible scholars argue for the primacy of the Septuagint (or LXX – meaning, the 70) as the original form of the Hebrew scriptures. The Scholars who argue for the primacy of the Septuagint often cite several reasons:
- Historical and Cultural Context: The Septuagint was produced in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, at a time when Greek culture and language had significant influence in the Mediterranean world. The Jewish community in Alexandria, which was primarily Greek-speaking, needed a translation of their Scriptures into Greek for religious and cultural reasons. This translation was seen as authoritative and widely used among Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.
- Early Christian Use: The Septuagint was the Old Testament used by early Christians, including the authors of the New Testament. Many quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. This suggests that the Septuagint held authority and was considered reliable by the early Christian community.
- Variants and Manuscript Evidence: Some scholars argue that the Septuagint preserves older or alternate readings of the Hebrew Scriptures that are not found in the Masoretic Text. Manuscript evidence, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, has shown that the text of the Hebrew Scriptures was not uniform in antiquity, and the Septuagint provides an important witness to these textual variants.
- Influence on Early Christian Theology: The Septuagint played a significant role in the development of early Christian theology and interpretation of the Old Testament. Many theological concepts and interpretations found in the New Testament and early Christian writings were influenced by the Septuagint.
- Diversity of Textual Traditions: The existence of multiple textual traditions within Judaism indicates that there was no single authoritative text of the Hebrew Scriptures in antiquity. The Septuagint represents one of these traditions and provides valuable insights into the diversity of Jewish textual practices.
The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, believed to have been produced in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. It includes not only the books found in the Hebrew Bible but also additional works known as the deuterocanonical books or the “Apocrypha.”
The LXX was widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish community and became the Old Testament for early Christians. Its influence is evident in the New Testament, where many Old Testament quotations align with the Greek text of the Septuagint and not the MT. This means that our Lord and his apostles chose the LXX instead of the Proto-Masoretic Text (which was the forerunner to today’s MT.)
Masoretic Text (MT):
The Masoretic Text was created by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scholars, between the 7th and 10th centuries CE and it forms the basis for the Hebrew Bible in most contemporary Jewish traditions.
The Masoretic Text excludes the deuterocanonical books found in the Septuagint and has differences in wording and arrangement compared to the Greek translation.
While there is substantial overlap between the LXX and the MT, significant variations exist in the wording, order of verses, and inclusion of certain passages.
Understanding the existence of these two Old Testament traditions is crucial for biblical scholarship. There are very important and significant differences between these two versions – some so significant they lead to very false doctrines (ie., Isaiah 9:6) so it is very important to use the version that Jesus used. When Jesus quoted the Old Testament he used the LXX primarily. Even more importantly, God quoted the LXX in the Revelation that He gave to Jesus:
God quoted the Septuagint in Revelation
This is arguably the most important reason to choose the LXX. When God gave Jesus the Revelation to give to John (Rev 1), He quoted the LXX and not the MT (Rev. 2:27)
Revelation 2:27 (New Testament, quoting the LXX): “And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I have received authority from my Father.”
Jesus and early Christians, including the apostles and New Testament writers, quoted from the Septuagint most often. This usage influenced the early Christian community and contributed to the acceptance of the Septuagint as authoritative where legitimacy matters and speaks volumes to its authority.
The Masoretic text (MT) was created by the Masorties between 600 AD and 900 AD.
After the Protestant Reformation (when the Protestant religion was formed and they broke away from the Catholic Church), a new Protestant Bible was created. The new Protestant Bible did not use the ancient Septuagint, instead, they used the more recently created form of the Old Testament called the Masoretic Text.
The Masoretic Text Changes Very Important Scriptures
People who care about the truth prefer the Septuagint because Jesus and the apostles quoted it. The OT in Protestant Bibles does not match the quotes made by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.
When using Protestant Bibles with the MT, if you try to go back to the Old Testament to verify the quotes printed in the New Testament, you will notice almost none of those quotes match what is written in the New Testament. This is because Jesus and the apostles didn’t use the MT, they used the LXX.
An example of how the Masoretic Text changes important details:
Psalm 2 is known as the verse that proclaims the coming Messiah. Many Bibles title this passage as a prophecy of “The Triumphant Messiah” because it is a prophecy of the Messiah and his future rule. The prophecy begins with God begetting Jesus and it ends with his future rule of Earth.
Jesus Quotes the Septuagint (Read the Text Here)
26 And to the one who overcomes and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations. 27 He will —–>rule them <—– (This is Jesus quoting the Septuagint) with an iron scepter and shatter them like pottery —just as I have received authority from My Father.
Septuagint Psalm 2
‘declaring the ordinance of the Lord: the Lord said to me,
‘Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter’s vessel.’
Not the Masoretic Text (Read the text here.)
I will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD:
“You are My Son; today I have become Your Father. Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession. You will break them with an iron scepter; You will shatter them like pottery.”
In the verses above, the Masoretic text takes away from an important prophecy that Jesus would be given authority to rule by replacing his ‘rule’ with ‘break’.
As you’ll see below, dozens and dozens of times, Jesus and the apostles quote the Septuagint. In some cases, the text between the two is radically different, and in some cases, like this one, the differences are extremely important.
Like The Mistranslated Isaiah 9:6
VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (AND THERE ARE DOZENS AND DOZENS) CAME FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND NOT THE MASORETIC TEXT.
Where this gets incredibly important is in Isaiah 9:6.
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
Many people refer to this verse when making a case for Jesus’ deity in scripture as this scripture is invoked almost every time as proof that Jesus is God.
The Masoretic text of Isaiah 9:6 reads:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from that time and forevermore.
On the contrary, the Septuagint version reads:
6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this. (See it online here.)
This is so important because it means, that if Jesus or the apostles were to quote Isaiah 9:6, they would have used the Septuagint version of Isaiah 9:6, not the MT.
ANCIENT QUOTES BY THE EARLY CHURCH WERE ALL FROM THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION OF ISAIAH 9:6
Justin Martyr is the first to quote the Septuagint version of Isaiah 9:6 in “Dialogue with Trypho”, calling Jesus ‘the Angel of Mighty Counsel.‘
Irenaeus in “Against Heresies”, quotes Isaiah 9:6 saying, “the messenger of great counsel of the Father.”
Origen, quotes, ‘He is the Messenger of Great Counsel, who has the government upon His shoulders‘ – Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IX.
Peter of Alexandria, Canon 5, quotes, ‘Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called the Messenger of My mighty counsel.’
‘Listen to the prophet too, calling him, ‘the messenger of great counsel’.’ Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom
Isaiah 9:6 is a verse that is used over and over by the apostate church to prove their doctrine but it’s not the original verse of Isaiah so its value is worthless.
Moreover, the Protestant version has changed the ACTUAL MT:
This is what the MT from the Jewish Community says, followed by how the Protestant church changes it to something that supports their theology:
|For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
|הכִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם:
|6To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David’s throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.
|ולְמַרְבֵּ֨ה (כתיב לְםַרְבֵּ֨ה) הַמִּשְׂרָ֜ה וּלְשָׁל֣וֹם אֵֽין־קֵ֗ץ עַל־כִּסֵּ֚א דָוִד֙ וְעַל־מַמְלַכְתּ֔וֹ לְהָכִ֚ין אֹתָהּ֙ וּֽלְסַֽעֲדָ֔הּ בְּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וּבִצְדָקָ֑ה מֵֽעַתָּה֙ וְעַד־עוֹלָ֔ם קִנְאַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת:
MORE EXAMPLES OF SERIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LXX AND THE MT
Matthew 12:21 quotes the LXX version of Isaiah 42:4:
A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not extinguish, till He leads justice to victory. 21 In His name the nations will put their hope.
This is what the LXX says, it agrees with Matthew’s quote:
A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not extinguish, till He leads justice to victory. In His name the nations will put their hope.
The MT however says something different and it is takes away from the prophecy that the nations would put their hope in Jesus:
A bruised reed He will not break and a smoldering wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
The LXX is significantly different than the Masoretic Text on a very critical point: we hope in HIS NAME!
Jesus quotes the Septuagint Isaiah 6:10 in Matthew 13:15
Matthew 13:15 says:
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
Which matches the LXX
For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
And NOT the MT
Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
This is once again a significantly different rendering that the MT changes the text to seem like God was helping people to fail. The Masoretic Text twists this verse into the opposite of God’s wishes to heal them. In the verse quoted by Jesus, the people’s hearts were calloused because THEY closed their eyes. Contrary to the MT version, the people weren’t made callous and God did not order them to be made callous.
Jesus quotes the LXX Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16
“Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked.
“Yes,” Jesus answered. “Have you never read: ‘From the mouths of children and infant You have ordained praise’?”
This Quote Matches the LXX
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise,
It Does Not Match the MT Version which says:
‘Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies…’
Jesus quotes the Septuagint Isaiah 29:13 in Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands.”
Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Jesus’s Quote Comes from the LXX version of Isaiah 29:13 which says the same thing:
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
Again, the MT Does Not Match the version of Isaiah 29:13 that Jesus quoted:
‘Wherefore the Lord said, For as much as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Last but definitely not least, John was also GIVEN the Septuagint versions to quote from God in the visions of Revelation 12:5 and 19:15! This is very important. Both Jesus and God used the Septuagint version.
Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5
The Book of Hebrews quotes the LXX which says:
‘thou has made Him a little lower than angels.
‘….made Him but a little lower than God.
List of More Verses To Lookup
- Luke 3:5-6 / 40:4-5
- Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6
- John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24
- John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1
- John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10
- Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30
- Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8
- Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1
- Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22
- Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14
- Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27
- Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8
- Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5
- Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12
- Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5
- Rom. 3:4 Paul quotes Psalm 14 Septuagint Version
- Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16
- Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23
- Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22
- Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9
- Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16
- Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4
- Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1
- Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2
- Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23
- Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20
- Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9
- Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13
- Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21
- Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10
- Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15
- 1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14
- 1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7
- 1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14
- 2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10
- 2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8
- Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26
- Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23
- Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1
- 2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5
- Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25
- Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22
- Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17
- Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8
- Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7
- Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33
- Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22
- Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6
- Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4
- Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24
- Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31
- Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12
- Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6
- James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34
- 1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6
- 1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6
- 1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21
- 1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9
- 1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31
- 1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34
The very significant differences on very important topics make the Masoretic Text an abomination because it completely changes the meaning of these passages and totally perverts what God originally said leading to demonic doctrine (1 Tim 4). It should be avoided at all costs.
Quick Links to Corrupted Verses
Luke 3:22 – Major Critical Corruption of Jesus’ Adoption
1 John 5:7-8 – A corruption so famous that it has a name!
Revelation 1:11 – Criminal Corruption of the Alpha and Omega
Isaiah 9:6 – The Prince of Peace is not the Everlasting Father
The King of Kings – Translator Bias
2 Peter 1:1 – Using the Evidence and Common Sense to Determine the Correct Translation
COMING SOON: Titus 2:13
Jump to Chapter