I saw a version of this question just the other day here on Substack, and it stopped me in my tracks. Because lurking beneath it is an assumption that somewhere behind the English translations there is one single original text. It sounds reasonable. It feels obvious. And it’s not entirely wrong.
But it’s not entirely right, either.
Obviously "read them all" is a little facetious, lol, but I do believe very strongly in reading multiple translations. There is no one translation that can convey the fullness of Scripture.
Understood. I chuckled since it’s a biopic for me over 30 years. One after another side by side. Started with multiple versions, side be side, and with the Stone ed. Chumash, Lamsa’s Peshitta, Gesenius lexicon, Holladay’s lexicon, Green’s Interlinear. And it intermittently grew from there … still is. The both/and approach is a great baseline.🙏
Agreed. My own Bible collection is indeed varied for the reasons you give. The KJV is a classic example of the lexicon of the common people of its period. As the English language consolidated almost 200 years later, you correctly note the changing character of its use and application.
The NRSV, as the approved Bible of the Anglican Diocese I serve, remains open on my desk. Several study Bibles, including a Biblical Greek primer and a Greek-English interlinear Bible, plus various commentaries and exegesis, help to answer questions about culture, audience and context. These provide a deeper, more contemplative approach to understanding 🌱
Partly true. We can always find someone we trust who can do that for us. It’s not difficult to ascertain if they are on the track of seeking original truth or pushing dogma.
I assume you mean your BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)?
First, recognize that "Biblia Hebraica" is simply the Latin for "Hebrew Bible."
Really, the Biblia Hebraica is just the critical, scholarly edition of the Masoretic Text. It's based on the Leningrad Codex, which is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible from about 1008 A.D.
I value all of the work you’ve put into this resource. And there are many areas where I’d agree. My question, though: Why do you conclude that each textual tradition represents God’s preserved Word? God surely inspired the autographs of Scripture, but are you implying that he also inspired the copies?
Another question: While the LXX was surely the Bible of the early Christians, does this mean that they say the apocrypha as inspired Scripture? Or could it have been much like our study bibles today? Portions of Scripture mixed with a bunch of historical writings and additional thoughts that relate. The Jews had never added those books to their collection of Scripture (law, prophets, writings). Even at Qumran, there are commentaries on all of the Old Testament manuscripts found there, but they did not do commentaries of the apocrypha.
That's a good question, Daniel, and I thank you for bringing it up.
There are a lot of reasons that have brought me to the view I hold, and truthfully I'm probably going to do a full post about that soon. But the short version comes down to a few details.
1. Quotations. In almost every case, the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. But there are a few occasions where they quoted the Hebrew or an Aramaic targum.
2. Preservation. The oldest complete or nearly complete manuscripts of the Septuagint pre-date the oldest Hebrew copies by more than five centuries (excepting the copies found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, of course).
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls. And speaking of the DSS, they show us clearly that a large number (and I would contend that we have grounds to say most of not all) of the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text have a Hebrew source that supports the ancient witness of those differences.
4. Jeremiah. Digging deeper into the DSS, we see that there were differing traditions of the same book found at Qumran with no signs whatsoever that the community there found either to be less authoritative than the other. No book tells this story more eloquently then the copies of Jeremiah found in Qumran. The two versions are radically different, with chapters in a different order and the version that aligns with the Septuagint being significantly shorter.
There's more, but I think that's sufficient for now.
To answer your follow-up question, no, I don't think the translation was inspired, but I do think that in certain places (namely those passages quoted by the NT writers, at the least) the translators were gently guided by the Holy Spirit.
No, I don't think the Apocrypha are Scripture. I don't know of anyone outside of Ethiopian Orthodoxy who sees the Apocrypha as authoritative.
It should be noted, however, that in the early Christian period there were works that we consider apocryphal that both the church and Judaism (certain parts of it, at least) considered authoritative. Such as 1 Enoch. They also found Jubilees to be extremely useful, if not quite on post with Scripture (though there were a few streams of Judaism who considered it Scripture).
The early church also considered the additions to Daniel and 1 & 2 Maccabees authoritative.
All that being said, I generally agree with Martin Luther's stance that the apocrypha are useful for edification, learning, supporting doctrine found in Scripture, and for historical and cultural context, though I do not consider them authoritative Scripture.
I think 1 Maccabees is especially useful as history. But again, I do not see it as Inspired Scripture.
The Bible is full of cute fables - ignore it other than as a fascinating historical document. Humans who identify as Christian suffer from Delusional Christian Ideology Syndrome.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't expect you'll find many people sympathetic to your position who see this.
For myself, I became a believer because just when I reached the point that I could no longer deny all the evidence for God He made Himself known to me personally.
But you should know that my perspective used to be pretty much the same as yours. I argued more than a few believers out of their faith in my time. I'm not proud of it but it's a fact.
And all that just to say that if your intention is to shake my faith you'll find that quite impossible.
If you can read Latin, The Vulgate would be it, being that in the early Church, when you said “Bible” that's what you meant. It was the first Bible as a complete book. The Traditional Catholic Priests still use it till this day for liturgy.
If you read English, the Douay Rheims Bible, and if you read Spanish, the Straubinger…these are simple translations of the Vulgate.
There are Septuagint manuscripts (ie: complete book) that still exist today that pre-date the Vulgate's translation by as much as a century, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
And the Septuagint translation pre-dates the Latin Vulgate by over 500 years.
Plus, Eastern Orthodox priests still use it today.
And the Lexham English Septuagint is a direct translation from Swete's Greek edition that comes directly from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So really, if you want the most ancient version in English then the LES is what you'd want.
If you read Greek then either Swete's or (if you want the critical text) then either Rahlfs or (if you really want the most rigorous and scholarly work available today) the Göttingen Septuagint.
You seem to misunderstand the word Bible. I had to Google what Septuagint meant before responding to you so I am sure I wasn't confused.
When I see the word Bible, I'm thinking Genesis to Apocalypse (Revelation). So here you are saying Septuagint. That's not the Bible, it's the old testament. I'm sure you are aware the Bible consists of two sections, Old and New. So when you wrote about the Bible, I was assuming you meant the whole book together (emphasis on together)
Not at all. I'm perfectly aware. And Codex Vaticanus also includes one of the oldest nearly complete copies of the original Greek New Testament, so my point still stands.
You're welcome to continue believing the Vulgate is the single best Bible, as seemed to be the point of your original comment. But I strongly disagree.
The whole thrust of my entire post is that there is no one translation that fully captures all of Scripture (not even the Hebrew as we have it today), and I stand by that.
You are yet again dividing it “Greek New Testament”.
The Bible is Old and New Testament. My source for my information is basic Bible History. Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the canons decided by the Councils of Rome and the other councils and so on and so forth. The Latin Vulgate is the product of his work. I say it's the best because it's the first complete compiled and approved book of the Old and New testament. But I understand you don't see the Catholic Church as authority. But I do so I consider the first Bible as what was “approved” for reading. But I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it too.
You seem to be assuming I'm not well versed in church History. I'm fully aware of where the Vulgate came from and who commissioned it.
But you do realize that your whole argument is based on semantics and granting sole authority to a Hebrew source that no one (not even the Jews themselves) gave it until after the destruction of the temple, right?
Textual plurality among the ancient Hebrew scriptures is well attested. So granting sole authority to one stream of those scriptures is an artificial imposition.
Artificial to you not me. I'm not really concerned about convincing of my faith. I hoped to just give you my opinion on why I hold my opinion, thereby pointing out that I understand why you see it as you do. Nothing more or less.
The Bible is a religious book, a spiritual inspiration, therefore it's not to be considered only via pure history but in addition with supernatural promulgation. That's all.
These things are easily found on Google so I'm not conflicted as to whether you know history or not. It's the how to navigate history that we disagree on. We are using different tools or lenses to view it.
Kevin, thank you for a fantastic article. Your point about the Lexham English Septuagint (LES) being a truly independent translation is excellent, and more Christians desperately need to understand the myth of the single "original" text.
However, I believe the "both/and" approach you advocate relies on a historically problematic assumption. It treats the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) as innocent, parallel transmission streams—just two different camera angles of the same event. But historical and archaeological evidence strongly suggests the MT is not an equal, complementary partner. It is an actively curated text shaped by the post-70 AD rabbinic establishment, in part to counter early Christianity.
You mentioned Jeremiah at Qumran as proof that both traditions existed peacefully and should both be embraced. While it is true the Dead Sea Scrolls contained both, textual scholars universally agree that the shorter Greek version (validated by 4QJer-b) represents the older "First Edition" of the text. The MT represents a much later "Second Edition"—an expanded, highly edited version where later scribes added notes and rearranged the theology.
The differences between these texts are not just "different facets of a diamond." We know the rabbinic scribes actively altered texts because of internal confessions like the Tiqqune Sopherim (the Corrections of the Scribes). They deliberately managed the text to establish theological boundaries, which naturally filtered out or altered the explicit messianic readings the early Church relied on.
For example, the MT is missing the word "light" in the resurrection climax of Isaiah 53:11, it erases the word "Nazirite" from Samuel's dedication in 1 Samuel 1, and it shifts the focus in Habakkuk 2:4 from God's faithfulness to human law-keeping. These are not complementary angles. They are theological amputations.
Having a "Study Stack" is a great practice, but we must weigh our witnesses accurately. The "both/and" approach may sound like balanced scholarship, but historically, it is a canonical surrender. By treating the Masoretic Text as an innocent parallel stream, we grant equal authority to a text that was actively engineered to dismantle Christian theology. If we willingly read the uncorrupted Bible of the Apostles through the lens of a text curated by their theological opponents, we forfeit the very textual foundation of the New Testament.
I respect your perspective, but I don't agree with it.
Scholars are much more divided on these issues than you might think, and the sheer amount of the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the Masoretic creates problems with your position.
Not to mention that most of the differences you note are merely leaving the truths implicit rather than the explicit treatment they get in the LXX.
And there is no canonical surrender here. You can view it that way if you choose, but when read as complimentary my experience is that almost every seemingly contradictory passage becomes a fuller, more complete truth when we view them side by side with the aim of seeing them as two facets of the same truth.
There are very, very few occasions when we are truly forced to choose one over the other.
Not to mention that you seem to be misunderstanding my approach. No text this old (and recopied this nanny times) is "innocent." Scribes frequently alter passages, there is a ton of historical evidence for this. No matter which stream of Scripture we are reading, we must do so with discernment, relying on the whispers of the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth.
Kevin, I really appreciate the dialogue. Iron sharpens iron, and I am grateful for your reply.
I want to address your point about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I completely agree that a large portion of the scrolls at Qumran align with the proto-MT. That does not damage my position; it actually clarifies it. The proto-MT was a real, ancient textual family (likely originating in Babylon). My argument is not that the post-70 AD rabbis invented the MT out of thin air. My argument is that they artificially elevated this specific, conservative Babylonian text and systematically suppressed the other, more expansive textual families (the ones preserved in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch). They chose the text that best served their post-Temple survival and their theological boundaries.
Which brings me to what I think is the most crucial part of your reply. You noted that the differences I pointed out (like the missing "light" in Isaiah 53 or the missing "Nazirite" in 1 Samuel) are just the MT leaving truths "implicit," whereas the LXX makes them "explicit."
That is exactly the canonical danger I am pointing to.
The Apostles did not preach an "implicit" Gospel. They built New Testament doctrine on explicit prophetic bedrock. If we accept a text that demotes the resurrection of the Suffering Servant from an explicit prophecy into a vague, implicit hint, we are reading a text that has been theologically declawed. The post-70 AD rabbinic establishment was perfectly happy to leave messianic prophecies "implicit" because implicit prophecies are easy to argue against.
You mentioned that because all texts have alterations, we must rely on the whispers of the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth as we read them side by side. I completely agree that we need the Holy Spirit. But we do not need to rely on subjective discernment to figure out which textual stream is the most reliable vehicle for Christian theology. The Holy Spirit already guided the Apostles to show us. When they wrote the New Testament, they overwhelmingly bypassed the proto-MT and rooted their explicit theology in the Greek translation of the older Hebrew stream.
Finally, you mentioned that reading these texts side by side rarely forces us to choose between them, viewing them instead as complementary facets. But consider Psalm 40:6 (Psalm 39:6 in the LXX). The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:5) stakes the entire doctrine of the incarnation on this verse, quoting it as: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me." He is explicitly quoting the Septuagint.
If you read the Masoretic Text, it completely removes the prophetic "body." The MT reads: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened." You cannot harmonize a physical incarnation (a body prepared) with a metaphor about obedience (ears opened). The early Church built its theology on the explicit, physical incarnation preserved in the Greek stream. The MT tradition erased the body of Christ from the Psalm. When one text affirms the incarnation and the other erases it, they are not complementary facets. Choosing to anchor our study in the erased text is the very definition of canonical surrender.
I deeply appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this topic.
I readily acknowledge that the formation of what became the Masoretic Text involved selecting certain textual traditions and suppressing others, though I don't see any nefarious intent there.
Based on my research I think it's entirely possible that several streams of Scripture no longer existed (or were no longer accessible to them, at least) in Hebrew. And while we might bemoan the rabbis' insistence on holding only to Hebrew sources, given the cultural disasters they faced in 70 and 135 it's completely understandable.
However, regarding Psalm 40:6 I completely disagree. And in this I suspect you might be misunderstanding my approach. It isn't about harmonizing. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of places where harmonizing the texts would be impossible, as you rightly point out. There's no case to be made for them really saying the same thing.
I do not seek to harmonize, I seek to view the text more expansively. And Psalm 40:6 is a perfect example of this.
The texts say radically different things, but that's not a barrier to them both being true. The Hebrew "ears you have opened" is a callback to Exodus 21:5-6 and a servant choosing to stay with their master for life out of love, so it's a statement of covenant faithfulness, which can absolutely be applied to the life of the Messiah. And I would say that we should apply this in addition to the LXX reading. Putting the two together gives us a fuller view of the Messianic prophecy in view in Psalm 40:6.
--1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV For **God is not the author of confusion**, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Having dozens of competing Bible translations creates confusion, and God is not the source of that. The King James Version stands alone as the preserved Word of God—the only translation people consistently defend and uphold. Other versions are often used simply to support whatever someone already wants to teach.
The KJV remains the most widely read English Bible in the world, and it's the standard that every new translation measures itself against. The goal always seems to be "better than the KJV."
Just because a word or a meaning isn't used in casual colloquial speech doesn't make it archaic. Struggling with anything outside today's vernacular says more about limited vocabulary and lack of education. Reading the KJV is an education. I highly recommend it.
--Amos 8:11 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that **I will send a famine in the land**, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but **of hearing the words of the LORD:**
I respect your perspective, but I don't agree with it.
The different translations only create confusion if you insist on reading them as contradictory.
I do not.
Reading multiple translations in parallel gives you a fuller understanding of God's Word.
As I argued in my post, there is no single translation in existence that can fully articulate the Word of God. The Dead Sea Scrolls having multiple Hebrew versions of the scriptures (all of which were accepted as authoritative by the community) prove this.
I've read the KJV multiple times. It absolutely has value. But it's also a barrier for a great many modern believers. Those two facts have no need to compete any more than the KJV needs to compete with the NIV (or any other translation).
The problem with your assertion is it fails to account for the full semantic range of the Greek term, τὸν μονογενῆ (ton monogenē). In this context it can mean, "only," "only-begotten," "one-of-a-kind," "unique," or "sole."
There is legitimate debate among scholars over whether we should read this as "only-begotten" from monos + gennaō: "to beget"; or monos + genos: "kind/class," yielding "unique" or "one-of-a-kind."
What you don't get from only seeing it in English is that both are contextually defensible. But the point is that there are skilled, faithful scholars on both sides of the debate. So the NIV's translation here is perfectly legitimate.
However, for my purposes, this is a perfect illustration of exactly what I do. You see, "Only Begotten" gives you one facet of this truth, and the NIV's "One and only," gives you a second facet. Which is exactly why I say that only by reading multiple translations do you get the full view of the truth of the Word of God.
If you wanted to make an issue of a translation choice, then realistically the Greek word, pisteuōn would be a much better place to start. That's the word translated in most places and most translations as either belief or faith, but neither of those really hits the mark. We've got centuries of believers who have seen "whoever believes in him shall not perish," but that's not quite correct.
You see, the Greek pisteuōn comes directly from the Hebrew words בטח (batach) and אֱמוּנָה (emunah). Emunah means "faithful," "steadfast," and "reliable." While batach means "to trust," "to rely on," "to feel secure," or "to be confident."
So as we might expect, pisteuōn covers the whole range of steadfast, reliable faith, supreme confidence, the firm foundation of secure trust.
So really, it would be much more accurate to say that what John 3:16 is really saying is that "whoever has unshakable faith and deep trust in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Do you see what I'm talking about here? This is why I say there is no one translation that can convey the entire truth of the Word of God. The meanings of words are simply too expansive for any single translation, especially in English.
But the fact that a Hebrew or Greek word can legitimately be translated into multiple English words doesn't need to undermine our faith in Scripture. Those meaning shifts do not need to be read as contradictory or competing. When we read them together as complementary they reveal the fuller, deeper truth.
--John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his **one and only Son**, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
--Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of **Adam, the son of God.**
--Genesis 6:2 **the sons of God** saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
--Job 1:6 Now there was a day when **the sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
You falsely condemn the KJV as having contradictions, but defend the NIV for actual contradictions. Jesus was not God's one and only Son, he was God's only-begotten Son. You switch Greek and Hebrew translations as fast as you switch English translations to prove what you want.
**Greek term, τὸν μονογενῆ (ton monogenē). In this context it can mean, "only," "only-begotten," "one-of-a-kind," "unique," or "sole."**
Yes, But, the whole of the Bible only supports “only begotten”.
Maybe you need to reread what I said about the KJV?
It's valuable. It preserves linguistic features no modern translation does. It's beautiful. It's absolutely the most influential book ever printed.
What I said that you're probably misreading is that quite a few words in it don't still mean what they meant in the 17th century so it's easy for a modern reader unfamiliar with them to come away with an incorrect understanding of what the text is saying.
That is factual.
It's not a claim of contradictions. It's an undeniable linguistic statement.
What I can't understand is why you're fighting so hard against the possibility that both readings are true. It doesn't have to be one or the other. That's a false dichotomy.
Wow you practically wrote a book here! Very interesting and insightful, and something I have always wondered about so thank you for your time and effort in putting this together!
Really helpful thank you, I’ve always read ESV or NIV translations and wondered how there could possibly be so many others that exist (and how could they all be faithful to the events that occurred). This issue is actually a huge stumbling block for new Christian’s, so I will be pointing them your way in future!
For the OT, read what Hellenic Jews were reading in the Lord's time - the LXX. If that's too much, scrolls that were eventually corralled into the MT are good. (I studied Biblical Hebrew preciselyto avoid having to read annoying interpretations.) I guess Christians agree on that. The question of the NT, however, is simpler - Jesus never meant to leave a written text. In the absence of the autographs, we have no idea on authenticity, besides probabilistic arguments, my favorite of which is the Alands' work on the Greek NT. In other words, study Koine Greek as well, and let's call it a day.
Orthodox Study Bible 2ed
Thank you brother. That took some significant time. The both/and approach resonates; as well as "read all of them".🙏
My pleasure.
Obviously "read them all" is a little facetious, lol, but I do believe very strongly in reading multiple translations. There is no one translation that can convey the fullness of Scripture.
Understood. I chuckled since it’s a biopic for me over 30 years. One after another side by side. Started with multiple versions, side be side, and with the Stone ed. Chumash, Lamsa’s Peshitta, Gesenius lexicon, Holladay’s lexicon, Green’s Interlinear. And it intermittently grew from there … still is. The both/and approach is a great baseline.🙏
Wow, that's impressive.
I've yet to read the Peshitta in anything more than bits and pieces so far, but it's on my agenda.
Agreed. My own Bible collection is indeed varied for the reasons you give. The KJV is a classic example of the lexicon of the common people of its period. As the English language consolidated almost 200 years later, you correctly note the changing character of its use and application.
The NRSV, as the approved Bible of the Anglican Diocese I serve, remains open on my desk. Several study Bibles, including a Biblical Greek primer and a Greek-English interlinear Bible, plus various commentaries and exegesis, help to answer questions about culture, audience and context. These provide a deeper, more contemplative approach to understanding 🌱
Love it!
Excellent effort. We need to realise that all Bibles contain purposeful errors introduced to affirm and promote a certain theological bias.
These are dangerous and breeds a certain kind of deception which leads to confirmation bias going forward.
We believe the lie and gather evidence to set it in concrete!
True. But sadly the only way around that is to read in original languages.
Partly true. We can always find someone we trust who can do that for us. It’s not difficult to ascertain if they are on the track of seeking original truth or pushing dogma.
Thank you. Well written and readable post. Pleased you rate the NKJV and I agree re thee and thou. I think it does a great job with the Psalms.
Be interested to know the differences between the Masoretic and the Biblia Hebraica text.
The new Septuagint translation sounds interesting.
Thanks again :)
My pleasure.
I assume you mean your BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)?
First, recognize that "Biblia Hebraica" is simply the Latin for "Hebrew Bible."
Really, the Biblia Hebraica is just the critical, scholarly edition of the Masoretic Text. It's based on the Leningrad Codex, which is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible from about 1008 A.D.
Thank you.
I value all of the work you’ve put into this resource. And there are many areas where I’d agree. My question, though: Why do you conclude that each textual tradition represents God’s preserved Word? God surely inspired the autographs of Scripture, but are you implying that he also inspired the copies?
Another question: While the LXX was surely the Bible of the early Christians, does this mean that they say the apocrypha as inspired Scripture? Or could it have been much like our study bibles today? Portions of Scripture mixed with a bunch of historical writings and additional thoughts that relate. The Jews had never added those books to their collection of Scripture (law, prophets, writings). Even at Qumran, there are commentaries on all of the Old Testament manuscripts found there, but they did not do commentaries of the apocrypha.
That's a good question, Daniel, and I thank you for bringing it up.
There are a lot of reasons that have brought me to the view I hold, and truthfully I'm probably going to do a full post about that soon. But the short version comes down to a few details.
1. Quotations. In almost every case, the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. But there are a few occasions where they quoted the Hebrew or an Aramaic targum.
2. Preservation. The oldest complete or nearly complete manuscripts of the Septuagint pre-date the oldest Hebrew copies by more than five centuries (excepting the copies found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, of course).
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls. And speaking of the DSS, they show us clearly that a large number (and I would contend that we have grounds to say most of not all) of the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text have a Hebrew source that supports the ancient witness of those differences.
4. Jeremiah. Digging deeper into the DSS, we see that there were differing traditions of the same book found at Qumran with no signs whatsoever that the community there found either to be less authoritative than the other. No book tells this story more eloquently then the copies of Jeremiah found in Qumran. The two versions are radically different, with chapters in a different order and the version that aligns with the Septuagint being significantly shorter.
There's more, but I think that's sufficient for now.
To answer your follow-up question, no, I don't think the translation was inspired, but I do think that in certain places (namely those passages quoted by the NT writers, at the least) the translators were gently guided by the Holy Spirit.
No, I don't think the Apocrypha are Scripture. I don't know of anyone outside of Ethiopian Orthodoxy who sees the Apocrypha as authoritative.
It should be noted, however, that in the early Christian period there were works that we consider apocryphal that both the church and Judaism (certain parts of it, at least) considered authoritative. Such as 1 Enoch. They also found Jubilees to be extremely useful, if not quite on post with Scripture (though there were a few streams of Judaism who considered it Scripture).
The early church also considered the additions to Daniel and 1 & 2 Maccabees authoritative.
All that being said, I generally agree with Martin Luther's stance that the apocrypha are useful for edification, learning, supporting doctrine found in Scripture, and for historical and cultural context, though I do not consider them authoritative Scripture.
I think 1 Maccabees is especially useful as history. But again, I do not see it as Inspired Scripture.
The Bible is full of cute fables - ignore it other than as a fascinating historical document. Humans who identify as Christian suffer from Delusional Christian Ideology Syndrome.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't expect you'll find many people sympathetic to your position who see this.
For myself, I became a believer because just when I reached the point that I could no longer deny all the evidence for God He made Himself known to me personally.
But you should know that my perspective used to be pretty much the same as yours. I argued more than a few believers out of their faith in my time. I'm not proud of it but it's a fact.
And all that just to say that if your intention is to shake my faith you'll find that quite impossible.
I wish you grace and peace and love.
Have you read the New World Translation?
I have not. Do I need to add it to my list?
Yes! Most accurate I have ever read
Most Bible scholars do not consider it a reliable translation.
After researching it recently, I have to admit that you're mostly right.
There is a ton of bias in it to support JW doctrine that, quite frankly, just doesn't exist in the original languages.
However, many scholars also say that outside of those doctrinal biases, it is quite accurate and very literal.
Read the one you’re most likely to read and understand. Then read some more.
Solid advice, so long as one does continue to read more.
If you can read Latin, The Vulgate would be it, being that in the early Church, when you said “Bible” that's what you meant. It was the first Bible as a complete book. The Traditional Catholic Priests still use it till this day for liturgy.
If you read English, the Douay Rheims Bible, and if you read Spanish, the Straubinger…these are simple translations of the Vulgate.
Thank you.
I appreciate the effort but that's not correct.
There are Septuagint manuscripts (ie: complete book) that still exist today that pre-date the Vulgate's translation by as much as a century, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
And the Septuagint translation pre-dates the Latin Vulgate by over 500 years.
Plus, Eastern Orthodox priests still use it today.
And the Lexham English Septuagint is a direct translation from Swete's Greek edition that comes directly from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So really, if you want the most ancient version in English then the LES is what you'd want.
If you read Greek then either Swete's or (if you want the critical text) then either Rahlfs or (if you really want the most rigorous and scholarly work available today) the Göttingen Septuagint.
You seem to misunderstand the word Bible. I had to Google what Septuagint meant before responding to you so I am sure I wasn't confused.
When I see the word Bible, I'm thinking Genesis to Apocalypse (Revelation). So here you are saying Septuagint. That's not the Bible, it's the old testament. I'm sure you are aware the Bible consists of two sections, Old and New. So when you wrote about the Bible, I was assuming you meant the whole book together (emphasis on together)
Not at all. I'm perfectly aware. And Codex Vaticanus also includes one of the oldest nearly complete copies of the original Greek New Testament, so my point still stands.
You're welcome to continue believing the Vulgate is the single best Bible, as seemed to be the point of your original comment. But I strongly disagree.
The whole thrust of my entire post is that there is no one translation that fully captures all of Scripture (not even the Hebrew as we have it today), and I stand by that.
You are yet again dividing it “Greek New Testament”.
The Bible is Old and New Testament. My source for my information is basic Bible History. Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the canons decided by the Councils of Rome and the other councils and so on and so forth. The Latin Vulgate is the product of his work. I say it's the best because it's the first complete compiled and approved book of the Old and New testament. But I understand you don't see the Catholic Church as authority. But I do so I consider the first Bible as what was “approved” for reading. But I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it too.
But thank you for your effort.
You seem to be assuming I'm not well versed in church History. I'm fully aware of where the Vulgate came from and who commissioned it.
But you do realize that your whole argument is based on semantics and granting sole authority to a Hebrew source that no one (not even the Jews themselves) gave it until after the destruction of the temple, right?
Textual plurality among the ancient Hebrew scriptures is well attested. So granting sole authority to one stream of those scriptures is an artificial imposition.
Artificial to you not me. I'm not really concerned about convincing of my faith. I hoped to just give you my opinion on why I hold my opinion, thereby pointing out that I understand why you see it as you do. Nothing more or less.
The Bible is a religious book, a spiritual inspiration, therefore it's not to be considered only via pure history but in addition with supernatural promulgation. That's all.
These things are easily found on Google so I'm not conflicted as to whether you know history or not. It's the how to navigate history that we disagree on. We are using different tools or lenses to view it.
Preferably, anything that hasn't been adulterated by Revelation 2:9/3:9 people
Kevin, thank you for a fantastic article. Your point about the Lexham English Septuagint (LES) being a truly independent translation is excellent, and more Christians desperately need to understand the myth of the single "original" text.
However, I believe the "both/and" approach you advocate relies on a historically problematic assumption. It treats the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) as innocent, parallel transmission streams—just two different camera angles of the same event. But historical and archaeological evidence strongly suggests the MT is not an equal, complementary partner. It is an actively curated text shaped by the post-70 AD rabbinic establishment, in part to counter early Christianity.
You mentioned Jeremiah at Qumran as proof that both traditions existed peacefully and should both be embraced. While it is true the Dead Sea Scrolls contained both, textual scholars universally agree that the shorter Greek version (validated by 4QJer-b) represents the older "First Edition" of the text. The MT represents a much later "Second Edition"—an expanded, highly edited version where later scribes added notes and rearranged the theology.
The differences between these texts are not just "different facets of a diamond." We know the rabbinic scribes actively altered texts because of internal confessions like the Tiqqune Sopherim (the Corrections of the Scribes). They deliberately managed the text to establish theological boundaries, which naturally filtered out or altered the explicit messianic readings the early Church relied on.
For example, the MT is missing the word "light" in the resurrection climax of Isaiah 53:11, it erases the word "Nazirite" from Samuel's dedication in 1 Samuel 1, and it shifts the focus in Habakkuk 2:4 from God's faithfulness to human law-keeping. These are not complementary angles. They are theological amputations.
Having a "Study Stack" is a great practice, but we must weigh our witnesses accurately. The "both/and" approach may sound like balanced scholarship, but historically, it is a canonical surrender. By treating the Masoretic Text as an innocent parallel stream, we grant equal authority to a text that was actively engineered to dismantle Christian theology. If we willingly read the uncorrupted Bible of the Apostles through the lens of a text curated by their theological opponents, we forfeit the very textual foundation of the New Testament.
I respect your perspective, but I don't agree with it.
Scholars are much more divided on these issues than you might think, and the sheer amount of the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the Masoretic creates problems with your position.
Not to mention that most of the differences you note are merely leaving the truths implicit rather than the explicit treatment they get in the LXX.
And there is no canonical surrender here. You can view it that way if you choose, but when read as complimentary my experience is that almost every seemingly contradictory passage becomes a fuller, more complete truth when we view them side by side with the aim of seeing them as two facets of the same truth.
There are very, very few occasions when we are truly forced to choose one over the other.
Not to mention that you seem to be misunderstanding my approach. No text this old (and recopied this nanny times) is "innocent." Scribes frequently alter passages, there is a ton of historical evidence for this. No matter which stream of Scripture we are reading, we must do so with discernment, relying on the whispers of the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth.
Kevin, I really appreciate the dialogue. Iron sharpens iron, and I am grateful for your reply.
I want to address your point about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I completely agree that a large portion of the scrolls at Qumran align with the proto-MT. That does not damage my position; it actually clarifies it. The proto-MT was a real, ancient textual family (likely originating in Babylon). My argument is not that the post-70 AD rabbis invented the MT out of thin air. My argument is that they artificially elevated this specific, conservative Babylonian text and systematically suppressed the other, more expansive textual families (the ones preserved in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch). They chose the text that best served their post-Temple survival and their theological boundaries.
Which brings me to what I think is the most crucial part of your reply. You noted that the differences I pointed out (like the missing "light" in Isaiah 53 or the missing "Nazirite" in 1 Samuel) are just the MT leaving truths "implicit," whereas the LXX makes them "explicit."
That is exactly the canonical danger I am pointing to.
The Apostles did not preach an "implicit" Gospel. They built New Testament doctrine on explicit prophetic bedrock. If we accept a text that demotes the resurrection of the Suffering Servant from an explicit prophecy into a vague, implicit hint, we are reading a text that has been theologically declawed. The post-70 AD rabbinic establishment was perfectly happy to leave messianic prophecies "implicit" because implicit prophecies are easy to argue against.
You mentioned that because all texts have alterations, we must rely on the whispers of the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth as we read them side by side. I completely agree that we need the Holy Spirit. But we do not need to rely on subjective discernment to figure out which textual stream is the most reliable vehicle for Christian theology. The Holy Spirit already guided the Apostles to show us. When they wrote the New Testament, they overwhelmingly bypassed the proto-MT and rooted their explicit theology in the Greek translation of the older Hebrew stream.
Finally, you mentioned that reading these texts side by side rarely forces us to choose between them, viewing them instead as complementary facets. But consider Psalm 40:6 (Psalm 39:6 in the LXX). The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:5) stakes the entire doctrine of the incarnation on this verse, quoting it as: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me." He is explicitly quoting the Septuagint.
If you read the Masoretic Text, it completely removes the prophetic "body." The MT reads: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened." You cannot harmonize a physical incarnation (a body prepared) with a metaphor about obedience (ears opened). The early Church built its theology on the explicit, physical incarnation preserved in the Greek stream. The MT tradition erased the body of Christ from the Psalm. When one text affirms the incarnation and the other erases it, they are not complementary facets. Choosing to anchor our study in the erased text is the very definition of canonical surrender.
Thank you again for the engaging discussion!
I deeply appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this topic.
I readily acknowledge that the formation of what became the Masoretic Text involved selecting certain textual traditions and suppressing others, though I don't see any nefarious intent there.
Based on my research I think it's entirely possible that several streams of Scripture no longer existed (or were no longer accessible to them, at least) in Hebrew. And while we might bemoan the rabbis' insistence on holding only to Hebrew sources, given the cultural disasters they faced in 70 and 135 it's completely understandable.
However, regarding Psalm 40:6 I completely disagree. And in this I suspect you might be misunderstanding my approach. It isn't about harmonizing. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of places where harmonizing the texts would be impossible, as you rightly point out. There's no case to be made for them really saying the same thing.
I do not seek to harmonize, I seek to view the text more expansively. And Psalm 40:6 is a perfect example of this.
The texts say radically different things, but that's not a barrier to them both being true. The Hebrew "ears you have opened" is a callback to Exodus 21:5-6 and a servant choosing to stay with their master for life out of love, so it's a statement of covenant faithfulness, which can absolutely be applied to the life of the Messiah. And I would say that we should apply this in addition to the LXX reading. Putting the two together gives us a fuller view of the Messianic prophecy in view in Psalm 40:6.
--1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV For **God is not the author of confusion**, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Having dozens of competing Bible translations creates confusion, and God is not the source of that. The King James Version stands alone as the preserved Word of God—the only translation people consistently defend and uphold. Other versions are often used simply to support whatever someone already wants to teach.
The KJV remains the most widely read English Bible in the world, and it's the standard that every new translation measures itself against. The goal always seems to be "better than the KJV."
Just because a word or a meaning isn't used in casual colloquial speech doesn't make it archaic. Struggling with anything outside today's vernacular says more about limited vocabulary and lack of education. Reading the KJV is an education. I highly recommend it.
--Amos 8:11 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that **I will send a famine in the land**, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but **of hearing the words of the LORD:**
I know where the word of the Lord is, do you?
I respect your perspective, but I don't agree with it.
The different translations only create confusion if you insist on reading them as contradictory.
I do not.
Reading multiple translations in parallel gives you a fuller understanding of God's Word.
As I argued in my post, there is no single translation in existence that can fully articulate the Word of God. The Dead Sea Scrolls having multiple Hebrew versions of the scriptures (all of which were accepted as authoritative by the community) prove this.
I've read the KJV multiple times. It absolutely has value. But it's also a barrier for a great many modern believers. Those two facts have no need to compete any more than the KJV needs to compete with the NIV (or any other translation).
Not wanting to compare the differences and inconsistencies of translations, I refer you back to my original comment.
I will give one example:
--KJV (1611)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his **only begotten Son**, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
NIV (1978)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his **one and only Son**, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
The NIV's rendering of this verse is totally incorrect and makes it contradict itself in a dozen places.
**https://kjvcode.com/
The problem with your assertion is it fails to account for the full semantic range of the Greek term, τὸν μονογενῆ (ton monogenē). In this context it can mean, "only," "only-begotten," "one-of-a-kind," "unique," or "sole."
There is legitimate debate among scholars over whether we should read this as "only-begotten" from monos + gennaō: "to beget"; or monos + genos: "kind/class," yielding "unique" or "one-of-a-kind."
What you don't get from only seeing it in English is that both are contextually defensible. But the point is that there are skilled, faithful scholars on both sides of the debate. So the NIV's translation here is perfectly legitimate.
However, for my purposes, this is a perfect illustration of exactly what I do. You see, "Only Begotten" gives you one facet of this truth, and the NIV's "One and only," gives you a second facet. Which is exactly why I say that only by reading multiple translations do you get the full view of the truth of the Word of God.
If you wanted to make an issue of a translation choice, then realistically the Greek word, pisteuōn would be a much better place to start. That's the word translated in most places and most translations as either belief or faith, but neither of those really hits the mark. We've got centuries of believers who have seen "whoever believes in him shall not perish," but that's not quite correct.
You see, the Greek pisteuōn comes directly from the Hebrew words בטח (batach) and אֱמוּנָה (emunah). Emunah means "faithful," "steadfast," and "reliable." While batach means "to trust," "to rely on," "to feel secure," or "to be confident."
So as we might expect, pisteuōn covers the whole range of steadfast, reliable faith, supreme confidence, the firm foundation of secure trust.
So really, it would be much more accurate to say that what John 3:16 is really saying is that "whoever has unshakable faith and deep trust in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Do you see what I'm talking about here? This is why I say there is no one translation that can convey the entire truth of the Word of God. The meanings of words are simply too expansive for any single translation, especially in English.
But the fact that a Hebrew or Greek word can legitimately be translated into multiple English words doesn't need to undermine our faith in Scripture. Those meaning shifts do not need to be read as contradictory or competing. When we read them together as complementary they reveal the fuller, deeper truth.
NIV
--John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his **one and only Son**, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
--Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of **Adam, the son of God.**
--Genesis 6:2 **the sons of God** saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
--Job 1:6 Now there was a day when **the sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
You falsely condemn the KJV as having contradictions, but defend the NIV for actual contradictions. Jesus was not God's one and only Son, he was God's only-begotten Son. You switch Greek and Hebrew translations as fast as you switch English translations to prove what you want.
**Greek term, τὸν μονογενῆ (ton monogenē). In this context it can mean, "only," "only-begotten," "one-of-a-kind," "unique," or "sole."**
Yes, But, the whole of the Bible only supports “only begotten”.
I said no such thing.
Maybe you need to reread what I said about the KJV?
It's valuable. It preserves linguistic features no modern translation does. It's beautiful. It's absolutely the most influential book ever printed.
What I said that you're probably misreading is that quite a few words in it don't still mean what they meant in the 17th century so it's easy for a modern reader unfamiliar with them to come away with an incorrect understanding of what the text is saying.
That is factual.
It's not a claim of contradictions. It's an undeniable linguistic statement.
What I can't understand is why you're fighting so hard against the possibility that both readings are true. It doesn't have to be one or the other. That's a false dichotomy.
Wow you practically wrote a book here! Very interesting and insightful, and something I have always wondered about so thank you for your time and effort in putting this together!
My pleasure. I hope it's helpful.
Really helpful thank you, I’ve always read ESV or NIV translations and wondered how there could possibly be so many others that exist (and how could they all be faithful to the events that occurred). This issue is actually a huge stumbling block for new Christian’s, so I will be pointing them your way in future!
I agree, it absolutely is. I spent a long time in the camp myself.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
God bless.
For the OT, read what Hellenic Jews were reading in the Lord's time - the LXX. If that's too much, scrolls that were eventually corralled into the MT are good. (I studied Biblical Hebrew preciselyto avoid having to read annoying interpretations.) I guess Christians agree on that. The question of the NT, however, is simpler - Jesus never meant to leave a written text. In the absence of the autographs, we have no idea on authenticity, besides probabilistic arguments, my favorite of which is the Alands' work on the Greek NT. In other words, study Koine Greek as well, and let's call it a day.
Excellent read!
Hey dear one, Jesus prophesied that the end times would happen to that generation mat24.34 not a future generation.
All has been fulfilled. You don't need to study anymore…