Bible Prophecy And Truth

Is the Masoretic Text the most accurate Old Testament translation that we have?

masoretic text

I've heard many argue that the Septuagint is the most accurate. So, as I always do, I studied this out!

If you're not familiar with the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text, they are two translations of the Old Testament, which have some differences. The Septuagint is the Catholic version which came from Greek manuscripts, while the Masoretic Text came from ancient Hebrew, and is what was used to translate the KJV Bible in English.

The main argument that I've heard FOR the Septuagint is that the listing of Cainan in Luke is in Genesis in the Septuagint while it is not in Genesis in the Masoretic Text.

Since Luke lists the post deluvian Cainan in Luke 3:36 (Cainan son of Arphaxad), it is assumed that it also belongs in Genesis 11:13.

What I found, however, is that this Cainan is NOT listed in the Septuagint in 1 Chronicles 1:24!

So if the Septuagint is supposed to be accurate why does it contradict itself?

Rather, we can assume the Masoretic Text to be more accurate because Cainan is not listed in either of the genealogies in the Old Testament. It's not in Genesis or 1 Chronicles. This consistency in the Masoretic Text is more of an accuracy than the contradiction found in the Septuagint.

It seems more likely that the Greek text translated in the Gospel of Luke is the inaccuracy in that it does not belong there! It was probably inserted at some point in certain of the Greek copies because of the incorrect listing in the Septuagint translation of Genesis, so this would be why there is a conflict.

Citing Cainan as a proof text for the Septuagint actually shows that the Septuagint conflicts with itself, proving that argument to be invalid.

There are many other differences, and some argue that the Septuagint more accurately matches many of the quotes from the New Testament, but I argue that of course the Greek would more accurately match the Greek when translating into English, but translating from ancient Hebrew as the Masoretic Text was would naturally vary from the Greek translation. The ancient Hebrew would also more accurately match the original intended meanings and doctrines!

Does this mean that the Masoretic Text is actually the True Old Testament as given by inspiration of God? This argument alone does not prove that, so let's look at the history of these two texts, and dive into some further revelations about them to discern the truth.

There are MANY Greek texts that have been proven to be altered or completely fictitious... and they have proven unreliable for the older Old Testament translations when compared to ancient Hebrew.

The Septuagint can be said to be the Catholic version of the Old Testament, and is inaccurate, while the Masoretic Text is where true Christians find the Truth, from the Authorized 1611 KJV Bible.

The King James Bible Old Testament came from the Masoretic Text.

The King James Bible is the most accurate translation we have, period. Many people think that the King James Bible is so far from the original text that it cannot be accurate, but the opposite is the reality. It is only two steps from the original text. The original Old Testament Hebrew was translated into what is called the Masoretic Text by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes and that text was used to create the English translation. The New Testament is translated into English based on the Textus Receptus (a collection of the original Greek texts) which was compiled by Dutch Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. While some people argue that this is still not good enough, the important thing to remember is that God preserved His word for us and He didn't give us a book that we cannot understand. 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

While we do know that Satan and men have tried to alter and distort the Bible, God preserved it through the mystery and parabolic teaching written in the Word that makes it impossible for them to do so. He is so much smarter, and so much greater than them! Praise God!

If we read the entire Bible canon as it is in the KJV, we can spot forgeries because God wrote His word in parables so that those who don't love the truth won't get it, but those who do will find it.

Catholic vs Christian - No, they are NOT the same thing!

The Vatican teaches that salvation is through the church.

According to the Catholic church you must do all of the following in order to receive salvation:

The Bible teaches us a completely different path to salvation.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In short, hearing and understanding the Gospel is knowing that God came to the earth in Jesus Christ and died for you, so you don't have to.  If you believe that, then pray, and tell Him so and turn to Him in obedience.  Let go of your pride and humble yourself before the Mighty God, who loves you enough to die for you.  The Lord is loving and merciful and there is no sin too dark for Him to forgive.  Give it to Him and turn to Him with faith and meekness of spirit, and He will lift you up.  Jesus loves you and He just wants you to love Him back. That, is salvation.

If you understand where the Catholic Church came from at her inception , and who she is in the End Time , you will, as I do, steer far away from the Septuagint and the Apocrypha!

Some additional information for in-depth study:

What is a false religion?

What must I do to be saved?

horizontal line

The following is argument against the Apocrypha that I found useful and interesting. It lines up with all the other research I've done, and I copied it from somewhere but I cannot remember where so I can't properly credit the author, but I'm including it here for your reading pleasure if you so desire.

Apocrypha definition, a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament.

Roman Catholics may tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." [Note: These people's leaders (popes, priests, etc.) have led them astray to this wrong belief.] This comment about missing books can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These popish additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.

What is the Apocrypha anyway?

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that the 66 books in the Authorized Version of 1611 of the Bible are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic institution pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, it seems obvious that the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Roman Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics have been deceived into not believing that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man [but they can come out of these deceptions in an instant if they will only believe the Bible as it is written].

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha:
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:
First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.


Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." King James Version Defended page 98.

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James himself said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."

King James Charles Stewart Basilicon Doron, page 13

In his, "A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches,"--found in his Workes (a collection of the king's writings)--King James said this--

"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"

Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition. The Church of England published the Authorized King James Version) states that

(1) the Old and New Testaments are the Bible-- In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...

(2) the apocrypha is not the Bible--

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.

Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James specially commanded the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--

The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...

Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, edited by G.W. Prothero, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, 1894, p. 416

The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

horizontal line

Conclusion: The Apocrypha and Septuagint are Catholic tainted texts, much of which is outright forgery and lies!

Should you read them anyway? I say NO. Do you have room for lies in your head? Is it a good thing to read something we know does not contain truth for the sake of reading it? I think not.