The Greek word "diabolos" is translated as "false accuser", "slanderer", and "devil".
After reviewing the Scripture again, it's clear that there were two reasons the KJV
translators, and most translators since then, translated "diabolos" as
"false accusers" and "slanderers" rather than "devils":
(ASV)Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
(BBE)Then Jesus was sent by the Spirit into the waste land to be tested by the Evil One.
(CEV)The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert, so that the devil could test him.
(Darby)Then Jesus was carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil:
(DRB)Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.
(GB)Then was Iesus led aside of the Spirit into the wildernes, to be tempted of the deuil.
(GNB)Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the Devil.
(KJV)Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
(KJV+)Then5119 was Jesus2424 led up321 of5259 the3588 spirit4151 into1519 the3588 wilderness2048 to be tempted3985 of5259 the3588 devil.1228
(KJVA)Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
(LITV)Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil.
(RSV)Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
(WEB)Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
(YLT)Then Jesus was led up to the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil,
At 1051 PM 11/20/2003 -0500, J.Richard Niemela wrote
John There is one point that helps to get a hold on this issue...that is to see that in the cases where Devil was not used, they context is Plural! And the Translators certainly could not have it understood that there was more then one Devil, or Satan...So, in both instances, whenever the context needed a plural, they used the correct word(s).....JRN
Note If you wish to be removed from this list, please advise and you will be taken off...
Again, Colonel, thank you for those excellent insights, and for doing your research so well.
Your claim that the word "devil" was added, and that the original Greek word "diabolos" from which it was translated meant an entirely different thing, is borne out by a brief review of the following Scripture
1Ti 311Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
In that verse, this is the only time the word "slanderers" was translated from "diabolos", with it being translated as "devil" 35 times, "accusers" twice, and "false" twice. It's obvious that the only reason they did that is because the KJV translators didn't want to characterize wives as "devils".
But the question then is how one Greek word could mean both "devil" and "slanderers"?
They did the same thing in the following Scripture when they translated "diabolos" as "false accusers"
Tit 23The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
So we're expected to believe that one single Greek word could mean "slanderers", AND "false accusers", AND "devils"? No way. Greeks couldn't have built much of a civilization with such a cumbersome language.
It has to mean EITHER "false accusers" or "slanderers", and it cannot also mean "devils". In that light, the following Scripture can mean either
Jam 47Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist slanderers and they will vanish from you.
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist false accusers and they will vanish from you.
But in the following Scripture, "false accuser" fits the direct reference to "he is a liar" better than "slanderer"
Joh 844Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Ye are of[your] ancestor the false accuser, and the lusts of your ancestor ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And what this means is that the most important part of Christ's charge was not that the jews were "children of the devil", but that they had TWO ancestries, since we certainly can't believe that Christ accused Abraham, who He acknowledged they were the "seed" of, of being either a slanderer or a false accuser.
And THAT means that Christ accused them of being mamzers, and thus that these mamzers who were pretending to be religious leaders can't enter the congregation of the LORD, even to the tenth generation.
At 1128 PM 11/19/2003 -0500, J.Richard Niemela wrote
The issue of the Septuagint vs the Massoretic Text is one which certainly needs to be discussed by all, and the Truth of the events associated with the abandoning of the Septuagint in favor of the Massoretic text revealed. There are facts available, as the attached article sent by Eduardo shows. A review of its derogation today can be traced directly to the Talmudic Jews, beginning from the time that they completed their Massoretic texts around 916AD....for then they began condemning the LXX.. And still do, going so far as to induce some of our blinded Shepherds and Theological schools to also revile its dignity.
In my research, I have talked to an editor at the company which publishes Strongs' Bible Concordance which has both a Greek and Hebrew language dictionary. He noted that they did not make a comparison between the Septuagint Greek and the Hebrew of the Massoretic text. Consequently, Strong's based its work on the Massoretic texts.
Remember too, that Strong was working in 1890, (It was first published in 1894) at a time when the Protestant church was going through the occult period of Westcott, Hort, Darby, Maitland, etc, and they were more pro a Catholic viewpoint for the Bible. And the fundamentalism that grew out of these times was also promoted by the Rabbi's...as it gave them the Chosen status as being the sole representatives of all Israel....despite the fact that more than 90% of these self-styled Jews have no genetic affinity with ancient Judah or Israel....They are Ashkenazic Khazars from Central Russia...>Ashkenaz was a great grandson of Japheth, one of Noah's sons....not Shem, or semetic, however.
But the facts that relate to the history of the Septuagint are obscured, due to the influence of both the Catholic Church and the Talmudists on the translated texts....Both sought to adjust the wording of the texts to accommodate humanist doctrines of their own--and the Translators did just that.. It behoves us all to do our own research to see just what they did, and how they skewed the texts by adding words and using multiple meanings that came from the options available to change meanings of sentences by using a different word...as in the word Stranger, and the words that were created out of thin air, common nouns made into proper nouns, like Satan and Devil..to instill a fear into parishoners.
The Brenton Edition of the Septuagint has a good long Introduction with a historical account of the Septuagint and is probably the most reliable and accurate account of its formation. Its Preface however is a good summary of the LXX and is worth showing here.
This edition of the Septuagint, including the Apocrypha, giving the complete Greek text along with a parallel English translation by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (1897-1862), was first published in London in 1851. The Septuagint (From the Latin septuaginta, meaning 'seventy', and frequently referred to by the roman numerals LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. the name derives from the tradition that it was made by seventy (or seventy two) Jewish Scholars at Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolmey Philadelphus (285-247BC). It has been preserved in a large number of manuscript copies of the original, and the Greek Text in Brenton's edition is based on Vaticanus, an early fourth century manuscript, with some reliance on other texts, particularly Alexandrinus, a fifth-century manuscript.
Although it is not completely understood either when or why the translation was originally done, it is clear that it in large measure reflects the common language of the period and became the "Bible" of Greek-speaking Jews and then later of the Christians. It is worth noting that the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew Old Testament in certain ways 1) the Greek text varies at many points from the corresponding Hebrew text; 2) the order of the Biblical Books is not the same---the threefold divions of the Hebrew cannon into the Law, Prophets, and Writings is not followed in the LXX; and 3) several books not found in the Hebrew are included in the LXX.---those books are known as the Apocrypha in the English Bible.
While the majority of the Old Testament quotations rendered by the New Testament authors are borrowed directly from the Septuagint, a number of times they provide their own translation which follows the Hebrew text against the Septuagint. In general, the vocabulary and style of the Septuagint is reflected in the theological terms and phraseology chosen by the New Testament writers, and therefore, takes on particular significance for a better overall understanding of the Scriptures. It is not surprising---due to its early widespread use and enduring influence in the Church--that the order of the Biblical Books in the Septuagint, rather than that of the Hebrew OT became the accepted order.
Although rejected by Protestants as non-cannonical, the Aprocryphal writings have enduring value as a literary and historical record of the intertestamental period. They often provide important background and illustrative material for a better understanding of the New Testament "world" and thus the New Testament itself."
The 11th Editon of the Ency. Britannica, the last version before the Jews got their hooks into this once trusted Encyclopedia, also has a good outline of the Septuagint's origins and the events associated with its development. Here is a bit of its text
"Again, it is probably the oldest translation of considerable extent that was ever written, and at any rate it is the starting point for the history of Jewish interpretation and the Jewish view of Scripture. And from this its importance as a document of exegetical tradition, especially in lexical matters, may be easily understood. and in it alone are preserved a number of important Jewish books that were not admitted to the Canon. As the book which created or at least codified the dialect of Biblical Greek, it is the key to the New Testament and all the literature connected with it. To many its chief value lies in the fact that it is the only independent witness for the text of the Old Testament which we have to compare with the Massoretic text. It may seem that the critical value of the LXX is greatly impaired, if not entirely cancelled by the corrupt state of the text. If we have not the version itself in authentic form we cannot reconstruct with certianty the Hebrew text from which it was made, and so cannot get at various readings which can be confidently confronted with the Massoretic text; and it may be a long time before we possess a satisfactory edition of the genuine Septuagint. The difficulties in getting behind the confusion of versions and recensions to produce such a result are indeed formidable. ......The immediate aim of textual criticism is a recovery of the three main editions, those of Origen, Lucian and Hesychius, and then of the pre-Origenian LXX text which lies behind them all. When this has been accomplished there still remains the problem of the relation of the LXX, to the Hebrew. There is no doubt that the Hebrew text from which the LXX translators worked was often divergent from that represented by the Massoretic. For the Pentateuch we have additional material in the Samaritan version, but here the variants are least. In view of the palpable mistakes made by the Septuagint translators and their often inadequate knowledge of Hebrew, we must not hastily assume that in cases of difference the Greek is to be preferred. "
However, there is one serious error in the interpretations of both sets of comments, a common error that stems from the confusion induced by Jewish thoughts and influence---that being the use of "Jewish" or "Jew" to collectively depict those of Israel and Hebrews....the idea being, that Jews are the sole representative of all things Hebrew or of Israel...That distortion of fact is what has caused considerable problem for any study of the Word...Jews as a people did not really emerge into any semblance of prominence until they returned from the Babylonian captivity----as a prophetic 70 week Jewish Nation...Before going into that captivty, they were Hebrews primarily.. So, we find the old Christian authors alternately using Jew of Jewish when they should have used Hebrew or Israel or Israelite. This approach lends credence to the false idea that Jew or Jewish is representative of all of the Hebrews of all of Israel...Hardly, and even if we assume that the intent was to show a single tribe, Judah, the error would be still there, for a Jew follows the Talmud and the faith of Judiasm, which is diametrically opposed to Christianity...they are not related despite the idea that Jews were the source or origin of Christianity....a serious error of monumental proportions....Nor was Jesus a Jew as many imply....To be a Jew meant to follow the edicts of their Talmud....Something we cannot accuse Jesus of doing....in fact, He condemned it with certainty.
When the LXX or Septuagint was compiled from the oldest Hebrew texts, the Hebrews were Judean or Judahites, as well as Israelites, so the Hebrew of that day, in 285 BC, was a far different Hebrew then when the Massoretes began their work around 400 AD..The old Hebrew did not have vowels, only consonants, and the Massoretes added their own vowels to their translations from the Greek Septuagint to the modern Hebrew...(They had to use the Greek Septuagint, as very little was available to work with from ancient times)
It is important to note as well, that if Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint, they Authenticated it...So who are we to make the Jewish Massoretic text superior to what He used....
It should be clear to most Christians that the Talmuds have had a hand in steering our Bibles for centuries...We, as sheep have let the wolves corral us into sheep pens of thought and purpose, and what it does confirm however, is that, yes, we are Sheep, and as Sheep, we can trace our origins----to His own words...about His purpose in coming, to "Save that which was lost" (Matt.1811) And to add more confirmation about who was lost, consider God's own words "My people, have been lost sheep." (Jer.506) and again in Ezekiel 3415-16 "I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away."
There are other versions of the Septuagint as well...The Thomsen edition does not have the Greek alongside, and other translations may be found as well...I am looking for one in the UK that was written around 1837 or so...
I have addressed this message to Dr. Gordon Ginn who has done considerable research on the history and value of the Septuagint, and he may add to this set of commentaries.....
Thanks for listening...JRN