Lies About Bible
One of the oft-repeated lies of the Roman Catholic Church is
that they are the ones who gave the world the Bible. The real truth is
that all the Scripture that makes up the Old and New Testament canon was
complete and in use even before the church at
Rome finished slipping into apostasy.
Romeís history is one of suppressing the Word of God not of broadcasting
When Rome wanted to
establish its power and control over other churches they had to contend
with a problem. It was a fairly literate world that had a multitude of
Greek texts carefully copied from the originals, preserved and read
within local churches. For the Roman church to grow in power it had to
make claims the Scripture did not endorse.
It would not be inappropriate to say there was a commonly
accepted form of Greek text in existence. Though
Rome would seek to suppress this text
it would be preserved and endure. This was the Bible of early Eastern
Christianity, the very heartland of where the Gospel message was first
preached. It was the Bible of the Syrian
Church, the Waldensian
Church of northern Italy, the Gallic
Church in southern France, the Celtic
Church in Scotland and Ireland, and the
Greek Catholic Church. The Greek text they used and preserved we now
refer to as the Textus Receptus or the Received Text. People who say the
Textus Receptus did not exist before Erasmus are either ignorant or
willfully lying about Bible history.
Neither did the world lack for a Latin Bible. Such a Bible
we will call Old Latin existed from the second century. It was popular
in North Africa and spread from
there throughout Europe as missionary activity into those places
preceded the activities of Rome. This is important because Rome claims
credit for Christianizing Europe when in fact it only deserves credit
for causing the terrible period of human history known as the Dark Ages.
Though the Roman Catholic Church sought to suppress this text it was
stubbornly held on to for nine hundred years after their Latin Vulgate
appeared. In fact the Old Latin Bibles did not fall into disuse until
Latin ceased to be a living language.
Augustine, whose critical thought and desire to promote the
Roman church over others, developed the doctrine of amillenialism and
the idea of salvation being vested in a church instead of totally in the
Lord Jesus Christ. He was against the true text of Scripture as was
Jerome. It was Jerome who would produce the Latin Vulgate, but even he
was not as depraved as his Roman masters would have had him to be. He
would not have included the Apocrypha had it been his choice. .
For hundreds of years the common people refused to call
Jeromeís Latin Bible the Vulgate. He had applied the title to it
falsely. Vulgate means common or accepted. For a multitude of people who
loved the true Gospel of Jesus Christ it could never be either. When you
discover the truth, a lot of things about history suddenly seem clearer.
Questions about the
Much has been said about the time the Septuagint came into
being but the truth is really unclear. There is a letter, which is
supposed to have been written by a man named Aristeas to his brother
Philocrates during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 BC). He
tells how Philadelphus was persuaded by his librarian to get a
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library. He then
appealed to the High Priest at
Jerusalem, who sent 72 elders (6 from each tribe) to Alexandria with an
official copy of the Law. In 72 days they made a translation which was
publicly read before the local Jews then presented to the king. From the
number of translators and some say the corresponding number of days in
translation it became known as the Septuagint (meaning seventy).
Josephus wrote of it, and other writers embellished the story with
The letter of Aristeas was actually written nearly 200 years
after the events it is supposed to describe (100-80 BC). Many of the
details in the letter are clearly not to be believed, but it is likely
that a translation of the first five books of the Bible into Greek was
done at or about the time claimed. It was generally well done, but not
of such quality that it could be accepted as the very Word of God.
Other books of the Old Testament were produced at various
times by several translators. The style varies from fairly good Koine
Greek to indifferent Greek and is full of problems. The canonical books
were believed to be completed before 117 BC. Of the Septuagint, Dr. D.
A. Waite says: It can be clearly seenÖthat the Septuagint is
inadequate and deficient as a translation. To try to reconstruct the
Hebrew Text (as many connected with modern versions are attempting to
do) from such a loose and unacceptable translation would be like trying
to reconstruct the Greek New Testament from the Living Bible of Ken
Paul Kahle (noted LXX scholar) doubts there ever was one
original old Greek version. His theory is that the LXX (Septuagint) had
its origin in numerous oral and written translations used in services
after the reading of the Hebrew original. Peter Ruckman agrees and adds
that he thinks that the supposed Septuagint quotes in the New Testament
are actually New Testament quote in the Septuagint. There is good
evidence for this position that cannot be gone into in the limited space
Scholars state that the 5th column of Origenís
Hexapla is the Septuagint revised by Origen. Ruckman says that it
originates in Origenís 5th column. The Hexapla was completed
in 245 AD and no one has produced a LXX written before 300 AD. Origenís
5th column has been a leading source of Old Testament
corruption, and was a huge influence on Jeromeís Latin Vulgate and its
inclusion of the Apocrypha.
Dr. D. A. Waite is also prepared to question whether there
was a pre-Christian Septuagint. He believes our Lord referred to the Old
Testament rather than a Greek Septuagint or other versions.