KJV vs other Bibles

[Deborah_]

17 minutes ago, Giller said:

Here is interesting info, if someone cares to read it, and no it is not by Chick, but by this guy Doug Stauffer.

Now I know some will reject this info., but if you look at the word itself, of what it says of Antioch, which is were the documents, that eventually brought about the KJV came from, and were most modern translations got their documents from, which is Alexandria, that itself can tell us a story.

Not much good was said of Alexandria, but good stuff was said of Antioch, which brought forth a great witness.

Act 11:25-27
(25)  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
(26)  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(27)  And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

So down below is the stuff from Doug.
 

(The Bible’s Family Tree – Simplified

The “original autographs” refer to the actual manuscripts penned by the writers of each of the 66 books of the Bible. They were written in manuscript form by one of God’s apostles or prophets. The original autograph was given to the nation of Israel (Old Testament) or a local New Testament church. Some New Testament epistles were sent to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, primarily chose the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages to be used for the originals of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Both of these tongues became “dead languages” within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. The words actually became “frozen in time.” Thus, the words and their meanings could not change. They became, as Latin, dead languages with fixed properties of meaning.

In contrast, English is a living language.  As such, new words are constantly being added to the English language, and old words remain in a state of flux. ⁴  For instance, the fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, released in the year 2000, advertises its product with the following quote: “This edition has nearly 10,000 new words and senses that reflect the rapid pace of change in the English language today.” ⁵  Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?

These original manuscripts (autographs) penned by the authors wore out from use. When certain other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. desired a copy of a sacred writing, a copy was made for them. These copies are called “manuscripts” because they were written with pen and ink (prior to the advent of the printing press and typesetting).

Frequently, scribes were known to have destroyed old, worn manuscripts after the new copies had been made (a process analogous to our disposal of a weathered flag). These scribes were not concerned with holding onto the originals because they had faithfully copied the text. This faithful copying resulted in the faithful promulgation of God’s word to subsequent generations. The only alternative explanation of the history of the Bible is that God’s promise has failed and the words of God have indeed passed away (Matthew 24:35).

Other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. made copies of these manuscripts until, eventually, copies of the sacred writings had been distributed all over the world. The written word of God spread in much the same way as the verbal word of God spread in the first century.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased…

     

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

 

      Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Warning: Satan’s henchmen were busy creating and copying some manuscripts at this time, too. Church history and the Bible warn about early corruption of the words of God. For instance, the Apostle Paul warns Christians in the first century of Satan’s devices: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (II Corinthians 2:17). Nelson Floyd Jones’ apt description of the early days of New Testament corruption contradicts the standard Bible critic’s position.

Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church ‘Fathers’ disagree with him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that ‘many’ were corrupting the Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered the text for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of Scripture were named by the mid-second century by these church Fathers. For example, Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to 176) said that the Scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day. Many modern scholars recognize that most variations were made deliberately.⁶ 
 

God’s Line of Manuscripts versus Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

The copies that were proven to be good copies were “received” by the synagogues and local churches and became known as the “Received Text.” Of the 5,262 Greek witnesses to the text of the New Testament, 80% are in full agreement with the true text; a full 90% of the witnesses agree 97% of the time! ⁷  In addition, ALL 2,143 Greek lectionaries support the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. (Lectionaries are manuscripts containing scripture lessons read publicly in the churches. In other words, the churches that utilized the lectionaries ALL used the text that gave birth to the King James Bible!!!!!)

In 1382, John Wycliffe gave his people their first English translation of the Bible. He became known as the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Regretfully, because of his lack of knowledge in Greek and Hebrew, he based his work primarily on the Latin manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was derived from Adamantius Origen’s corrupted Greek Hexapla, commonly referred to as the Septuagint – LXX. Foxe confirms Wycliffe’s use of the Latin in his comments about William Tyndale. Tyndale was the first individual to return to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. All of the English versions before Tyndale were translations of a translation, all derived from the Vulgate or older Latin versions. ⁸ 

Wycliffe was hated for his attempt to give the common people the words of God in the English language. In 1415, he was posthumously condemned for heresy by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance. The Council ordered his bones exhumed and burned. The orders were carried out in 1428 when they unearthed them, burned them to ashes, and threw them into the river Swift.

In 1516, a scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was led of God to produce the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Although he did not have a complete text, he used the manuscripts available to him to produce a Greek New Testament, which later became known as the Textus Receptus. Some claim that his work was inferior because he was supposedly ignorant of the competing text types. This is simply not true. Documentation exists to prove that he did in fact have knowledge of the Vaticanus manuscript and had regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, concerning it. ⁹  Furthermore, a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda sent extracts of the Codex Vaticanus to Erasmus, in an attempt to convince him of its superiority. ¹⁰  After considering the material provided him, Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus as a variant text type. (Vaticanus is discussed further under Satan’s line of manuscripts.) Thus, Erasmus knew of the text used by modern bible critics almost 100 years prior to the King James Bible, but considered Vaticanus, as well as the other Alexandrian texts to be variants.

Erasmus was the most unlikely candidate to be used of God. Yet, he was uniquely qualified. Who better to expose the fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church than one completely familiar with its ways? Although Erasmus had been raised and trained by Catholic monks, he was a true man of character. He spent his life writing about and protesting the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic system. His true friends were the Protestant scholars among whom he lived and died.

Cambridge historian Owen Chadwick said he was an “ex-monk…a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money he left was used to help Protestant refugees.” ¹¹  He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel. Erasmus shows up on Sebastian Frank’s list of heretics of the Roman Catholic Church. ¹²  The Council of Trent condemned Erasmus’ translation of the Bible because it did not match their corrupt Vulgate translation, but rather the text of true Christianity. In 1559, the pope placed Erasmus’ writings on The Index of Forbidden Books, just as the word of God had been placed on that list in 1229. ¹³  The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 about the same time as the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the 45 articles decreed by the Council dealt with heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 2 - The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.

Canon 14 - We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue. ¹⁴ 

No matter how much the Roman Catholic Church fought against those that tried to spread the word of God throughout the world, truth still prevailed. The Textus Receptus was eventually translated into other languages, including French, Dutch, Danish, and Czech. Other well-known Bibles were also produced from Erasmus’ work. These included the Swedish Uppsala Bible, the Spanish Reyna, the Italian Diodati version, and Martin Luther’s German Bible.

.......

 

Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

In 1475, a manuscript was logged into the Vatican library known as Codex Vaticanus. It was “rediscovered” almost four centuries later (in 1845) and has become instrumental in influencing modern scholarship. It dates to around A.D. 350.

In 1844, a second Alexandrian manuscript, called Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. This manuscript also dates to about A.D. 350. Many scholars believe that these copies are two of the 50 copies that the Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to prepare for the new churches he planned to build in Constantinople. Thus, Origen (the Gnostic) influenced Eusebius (his favorite student); Eusebius influenced the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts; and – in turn – every modern version taken from these two manuscripts was corrupted!  Neither the Vaticanus nor the Sinaiticus was accepted as a “received” text. Thousands of changes have been noted within their pages by many different scribes throughout history.

In 1853, two men named Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort set out to write a Greek text based on these two Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus). Since these two texts by then disagreed with each other in some 3,036 places in the four Gospel books alone, the two men had to come up with a completely subjective text influenced by their heretical views. Consequently, they wrote an “eclectic” text, meaning they preferentially picked and chose certain portions of scripture from the Vaticanus manuscript and other portions from the Sinaiticus manuscript until they produced a rendering that satisfactorily conveyed their doctrines. (BUT “…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” II Peter 1:20.).

Scrivener reported 15,000 alterations in the text of Sinaiticus “brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.” ²³ 

Therefore, it stands to reason that no matter how closely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus once agreed, with so many alterations these witnesses could no longer agree. Regarding the thousands of changes in the seventh century, Scrivener wrote: “The one object of this corrector was to assimilate the Codex to manuscripts more in vogue in his time, and approaching far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.” ²⁴ 

In 1898, a revision of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text was made and called “Nestle’s Greek Text.” The majority of Bible colleges today use Nestle’s Greek text (the Aland-Nestle²⁶ or the UBS³) although it differs greatly from the Textus Receptus. Despite this fact, the new versions arise from these corrupted texts, while the King James Bible stands alone in its use of the Textus Receptus and its rejection of the readings from the corrupt texts. (Note: UBS³ stands for the third edition of the United Bible Society.)

Westcott and Hort had an unusual rule of thumb for determining which Greek text to choose when there was a variant reading. They chose the “neutral” approach. Basically, this meant that the variant (the difference between the Greek texts) was approached from the perspective that the reading that should be chosen would be the one that reflects the least doctrinal bias (i.e. the one that is most neutral). For instance, they chose to use the word who or he in I Timothy 3:16 rather than God (used in the Textus Receptus) because they hypothesized that some well-meaning scribe inserted God into the passage. According to their theory, the variants were caused by God’s people, rather than those who had set out to corrupt the scripture (II Corinthians 2:17). This is preposterous and anti-scriptural!

Typical of this philosophy, James White justifies the changes in the modern versions using various unproven hypotheses such as: “scribal expansion,” ²⁵  “parallel passage corruption,” ²⁶  “scribal harmonization,” ²⁷  “parallel corruption,” ²⁸  and “parallel influence.”²⁹  Johann Jakob Griesbach concurs with this theory that the corrupted text is the one that contains a dogmatic position on doctrine. Read the illogical conclusions for yourself:

When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious.  ³⁰ 

If the subject were not so serious, this absurd position would be humorous. Such a theory certainly has no basis in the spiritual realm. We are not talking about just any book. We are discussing a book that Satan hates! Ignorance of the truth has always been his greatest ally. To attribute the changes to “well-meaning godly men,” rather than to satanic influence borders on lunacy. Dr. Samuel Gipp succinctly speaks from the Bible believing, spiritual perspective.

If Satan can eliminate the Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its accuracy, he can successfully foil God’s every attempt to teach us.  ³¹ 

Westcott and Hort’s theory of corruption has been proven false by unquestionable evidence. Dean Burgon dedicated 84 pages of evidence to support the KJB rendering of I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” and to invalidate the modern version rendering of “He who was manifest in the flesh.” Out of 254 manuscripts and translations in other languages personally examined by Dean John Burgon, 252 contained the reading supporting the KJB. ³²  This equates to greater than 99% agreement with the King James reading and less than 1% siding with the readings found in the modern versions.

Compare the magnitude of evidence from the correct reading with the typical footnote found in most modern versions: “Some manuscripts read God.” The modern version editors fail to tell you that the two manuscripts supporting the corrupt reading are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. According to the critic’s theory, these two manuscripts should be given precedence because they do not contain as dogmatic a doctrinal stand. Here is the standard line of the liberals and neo-fundamentalists as excerpted from the book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man.

The discovery of some ancient Greek manuscripts late in the nineteenth century produced a revolution in the understanding of the Greek New Testament. These discoveries have changed the editing of Greek texts into a new quest to define the original text. These texts are based on new witnesses not previously known and new approaches to interpreting the variations. Beginning in the 1880s, printed Greek New Testaments were developed with significant differences from the traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text.³³ 

According to this modern philosophy, God’s promise of providential preservation of the scriptures failed until Tishendorf, Tragelles, and Westcott and Hort “providentially” discovered it in the mid-nineteenth century. Consider the dire implications – the text used by the church for 1,500 years and the same one that aided the cause of the Protestant Reformation was really not the preserved text. Instead, infidels rediscovered it during a time of great unbelief – the time of evolution, liberalism, Freud, and Marx. True biblical historians trace the great confusion and discord among believers today back to this period of uncertainty and unbelief.)

There's a lot to take issue with here. "The word of God" in the New Testament virtually never (if ever) refers to manuscript documents of the New Testament - certainly not in II Corinthians 2:17, which is talking about preaching the Gospel.

"the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?"

What utter rubbish to anyone who knows anything about linguistics. No language 'improves' or 'degenerates'; it just changes. Eventually it changes to the point of being a different language. The wonderful 'pure' languages of French and Italian are merely 'degenerate' forms of Latin. Whether the end result is an 'improvement' or a 'deterioration' depends entirely upon your point of view (and probably on what you are 'used to'). And anyway, why should the spreading of God's word be constrained by such aesthetic prejudices? If we take this to its logical conclusion, should we be learning Greek and Hebrew, like the Muslims all have to learn Arabic?

Why is Erasmus considered to be infallible?

And quite why a text written in the 4th century but discovered in the 19th century should be 'contaminated' by the liberalism and Marxism that just happened to be around at the time is beyond me. This is "guilt-by-association", which is not an admissible argument.

Why is Satan repeatedly brought into all these discussions? I ask this not because I don't believe in his existence (I do) but because I seriously doubt that any of us have an insider's view of his plans. Anyone who tries to 'demonise' their opponent by calling them an agent of Satan is guilty of 'ad hominem' in a big way - and I now regard it as a sure indicator that their own argument is dangerously weak.

Finally, the numbers of manuscripts with one reading or another is completely irrelevant. Do a thought experiment: if by some chance the original of one of the New Testament letters was ever discovered, that one single document would trump thousands of copies. Do another: if the number of published copies of the NIV ever exceeds the number of copies of the KJV, would that automatically make the NIV 'better'? The article makes a complete caricature of textual criticism in order to rubbish it.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Giller said:

  Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?

Yes, sure miss the 1611 "pure" English:

“For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:” Eze 24:7 KJV 1611

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 minutes ago, Giller said:

And on another note, no Erasmus was not infallible, but God did say he would preserve his word, and we either believe him or not, we either believe that he can do this, by whatever means he chooses, or we limit God, and don't believe that he can preserve his word.

If God preserves the word that way, then if was already preserved before the KJV!

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, Giller said:

I guess there is no point in going into point b, when point a cannot be resolved.

I've only seen a few even get to point a,  and that was years ago,  (on the internet),  for a short time.  

Even in person getting to point a is rare. (according to SCRIPTURE).

There's wrong doctrines all over the internet,  as their has been all over the world for centuries,

no matter KJV or other translations uses.    Wrong as Y'SHUA showed the religious leaders wrong though they had the "originals" .

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Giller said:

Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

to me, that comes uncomfortaby close to this:

22Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

To me, I see little difference between saying that Jesus was empowered by Satan, and saying that the Bibles many Christians revere with holy fear, were translated from Satanic texts. I think that case is irresponsible, dangerous, and in error.

I would not want to stand before God and tell Him, that He was so out of the loop, He could not even keep Satan from rewriting the word. Also, it is interesting to note, what a poor job Satan must have done, since as far as I can see, every critical doctrine is intact, unless you think maybe, that drinking poison, handling snakes, and speaking in tongues for all believers, fall into the critically important set of doctrines.

[Omegaman 3.0]

7 minutes ago, Giller said:

Yes the word was preserved before the kjv, the kjv just happens to come from the originals.

I do not even have a clue what you mean there, the KJV comes from one of the received texts, reconstructed from copies of copies of copies, in part, my a Catholic/Humanist, not only that, but the KJV included the Apocrapha. Not to mention, the the translators of the KJV said, that there were fine Bible before theirs, and that there would be better ones in the future, when better manuscripts would be discovered. 

I tend to think that the translators of the KJV had their heads on straight, since they themselves, were not KJV onlyists.

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

to me, that comes uncomfortaby close to this:

Expanding "that" somewhat,  I think everyone is/should be/would be "uncomfortable" if they knew the true history of what was done religiously and politically, medically and scientifically, and socially and educationally, 

instead of the re-written history,   or the 'fake' history, (just like the "FAKE NEWS" recently = it is NOT A NEW THING).

Not just "uncomfortable",  but in fact it is "embarrassing and devastating" when people first come to the truth, YHWH willing - not just for their own lives and repentance,  but to see how much all their lives they were taught such errors as truth,  throughout every segment of society almost. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

6 hours ago, Giller said:

And personally, I do find the Tyndale, and Geneva bibles to be pretty decent.

. . . and that is fine, but my point is (and I am not saying you fall into this class) that for many KJV onlyists, there should b a dilemma. Either God keeps His word perfectly, or He does not. They often seem to want us to believe, that the KJV is a perfect and inerrant translation. Of course, if God keeps His word preserved, then if was already preserved before the KJV, and that means predecessors were preserved. If that logic holds, then the KJV would be a clone of earlier Bible versions. Since their are differences, then either the KJV is erroneous, and an earlier version preserves God's word, or God failed to keep his word preserved earlier. 

Bottom line is that since there are differences between earlier English versions and the KJV, then maintaining the God always preserves His word, is a misunderstanding of what that has to mean, and it does not mean what many KJVers say it does. What it boils down to, is that just because some group of humans want to call a certain manuscript compilation, the "received text", does not mean that there is anything special about a text so named. Similarly, calling a Bible version the "authorized version", does not imply that God authorized it, is just means that some human king, claiming to be the head of the church of England (what makes that church special anyway) did not like the Bible that protestants were using, and commissioned a new version to be made, that was more politically acceptable to him, so the king authorised that version to be used in 'his' church.

In a twist if history, a Scottish King ascended to the throne of England. The reformation was growing, and the reformers did not like having ties with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Seems that the Church of England, wanted independence from Rome also, but, did not want to let churches be independant of central government either (threatens the power structure of British government), so a new Bible was seen as a compromise way to hold onto power, and please those who wanted independance from the Roman church. In a politically clever move a new Bible in English is ordered, and we got the KJV. 

The KJV is a good Bible, a fine translation, but it is not perfect, and no British king has any special spiritual authority to declare what Bible is God's Bible, not claim to be the head of the church, a title belonging to Christ alone. James Stuart, is not the head of the Church, no more than the pope was.

His desire to have a sound translation, seems to have been real enough, and that he so ordered, fair enough. However, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the Geneva Bible, other than it's marginal notes or commentary, were not all that friendly to the king - King James seems to have not cared much for the protestant reformation, so, that seems to be part of the motivation for a new Bible. Again, not saying the KJV is a bad Bible, it is not, but it also is not, anything uniquely special, other than it's popularity as the official Bible of the government of England in the early 1600s.

I am fond of saying, from time to time, that God does keep His word intact. That message is timeless, and His word, is His thoughts and will, from His heart and Spirit, to the hearts and spirits of those who love Him, is intact. It is not ink and paper, recorded by imperfect human scribes, that is the perfect word of God, the word of God exists, even if all paper Bibles are destroyed, it is a spiritual thing, not some version of Bible.

A believer hides the word of God in his heart, and acts upon that, even if his understanding if imperfect. Imperfect understandings, is what men write down, and call Bible versions, but Gods truths are independent of man's recordings and efforts.

I am glad there are so many version, and so many manuscripts that have come to light, both Alexandrian and Byzantine test types. Because of them, we have better resources and time has progressed, a surer word of God, and solid doctrines that we may count on as trustworthy and sufficient.

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 3/24/2017 at 10:25 AM, LadyKay said:

How many post are we going to have on this topic? 

When will Christ return?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

21 hours ago, Giller said:

The Latin Vulgate was derived from Adamantius Origen’s corrupted Greek Hexapla, commonly referred to as the Septuagint – LXX.

This is as far as I got, it's been a busy weekend. I will go back and finish reading it. 

Here is why creditable sources are important and more so critical thinking (just because some says so does mean that it is). 

Here your source appears to be saying that Origen wrote the Septuigent?? Which is wrong beyond wrong.!!!  

Lets give your source the benefit of the doubt, he did clear call it corrupt. 

First let's look at the word Hexapala. I had to look it up:

Hexapla (Ancient Greek: Ἑξαπλᾶ, "sixfold") is the term for an edition of the Bible in eight versions, six of them in Greek.[1] It is an immense and complex word-for-word comparison of the Greek Septuagintwith the original Hebrew Scriptures, and other Greek translations.[2] The term especially and generally applies to the edition of the Old Testament compiled by the theologian and scholar Origen, sometime before the year 240 CE, which placed side by side:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla

So Origens Hexapala was a comparison of the Greek word for word of the Hebrew. Not a stand alone bible. 

Lets look at the Septuigent. In the NT the OT is quoted over 300 times ( I can't remember the exact number). Of those quotes 80% of them come from the septuigent. So according to your source, the NT writers quoted and used scripture that was corrupted ?!?

i also think that the 80% is important. Because it drives home the importance of the septuigent. The Aposltes almost exclusively used the septuigent to quote scripture. And the early Church also used it, this was the OT used by the first Christians. 

So for your source to say that the scriptures that the Aposltes used was corrupt is a problem. Also Origen didn't write the septuigent. 

Cheers and God Bless