Featured Translating OT from Septuagint

the guiding by the Holy Spirit in ALL our daily lives is essential. When engaged in the vast subject of textual studies, with so many translations now available, and with different readings, it is here that we need to seek the Holy Spirit, as He alone leads us to the Truth.

 

are you saying that Thayer was not a Unitarian? have a read of this, Thayer, Joseph Henry: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Doctrinal Error in Thayer's Lexicon | SHARPER IRON

 

Jerome was a great Bible textual scholar, not Augustine!

 

​

Gosh, I agree with you. LOL

One common misconception is that there is only one Septuagint.

• The fact is there are many different versions of the Greek OT
• Many (many, many) different authors translated what we now call the Septuagint (or LXX) and within each version there is a wide variety of translation methods.

​

Merry Christmas

Rob

 

A very Happy Christ-mas to you and your family. May our Great God bless you all

 

Like I said, no real evidence. False witness, probably originated by one bible "onlyist".

Here is from his own words, which count far more than suggestions by unnamed people.

was henry joseph thayer unitarian - Google Search

he writes to a pastor
desirous of reading up on the deity of Christ:
But in preparing to present from the pulpit any doctrine of the truth of
which I was thoroughly convinced (like the present doctrine), I have usually
found myself most helped by reading the ablest books on the other side. By
doing this, one not only best discovers what the actual difficulties of an
unbeliever are, but has suggested to him (often) the best methods of meeting
them.

And

"
JOSEPH HENRY THA YER 265
one who in wide erudition and advanced scholarship "knew it
all," and yet held fast to every vital point of the old faith.
Three passages from his letters will illustrate my meaning:

The really strong argument in support of Christ's pre-existence has
always seemed to me to be the concurrent, yet (at least as respects its form)
independent, representations of the biblical writers, not even excepting the
synoptists; for, although the first three gospels contain no explicit assertion
of the doctrine, the personage they portray forbids his classification with
ordinary men, and leaves so unique and exalted a conception of his relation
to the Father that the explicit declarations of the fourth gospel awaken no
surprise in the ordinary reader. In fact, the old assertion of the critics, that
the fourth gospel presents a very different personage from the Messiah of the
first three, is now, I believe, generally abandoned.
Indeed, how anyone who admits the exceptional character of Jesus, above
all recognizes in him the embodiment of the self-manifesting power of God,
can be stumbled by the statement that he (congruously enough) came into
the world in an exceptional way, I never have been able to understand.
On the genuineness of John my opinion remains unchanged. Many of
the embarrassments I think due to (or greatly aggravated by) misconception
as to the nature of the gospels in general, and of that one in particular, and
the consequent application to it of false historical requirements which it was
not intended to meet.

 

Why don't you check his Lexicon for yourself

 

And yet your own comment is in the tradition of the latter. LOL.

 

Lies do not make it so. First of it is his translation of someone elses Lexicon. Second the forward written is false, probably by Green. The first false witness of this was in "kingdom of the cults", which was incorrect. It is a plain fact that he was a Congregationalist, not a unitarian. You are passing on false information. I realize you don't mean any thing bad, but your sources are false.

 

"Ay, there's the rub." Wasn't Origen's Hexapla purportedly an attempt to compare Greek versions? He does not seem to have considered all of them to be LXX. Nor does Jerome

Beyond the tradition of 72 translators (forget for a moment the myth that they all translated the OT entire), did they think the LXX a hybrid of translations?

 

Do not twist the statement or its intent. That the Holy Spirit should prevail is paramount. But God is not stupid or irrational or illogical, nor is his Word. God is above man's abilities not below them.

And a man is not the Holy Spirit. Someone imagining or claiming that the Holy Spirit led him into falsehood is deceived, and should in no wise be believed. Anyone imagining such things do not happen is open to being grievously misled. No one engaging in argument is above being challenged on the merits of his argument.

 

When you understand textual studies we can have a better dialogue. Until then

 

People try to support the unsupportable

 

Your posts make that seem doubtful when they deny, ignore, or omit more basic requisites, including a basic comprehension of what is being said. But you aren't under obligation to reply to my posts.

 

Agree strongly. Human nature abhors a vacuum.

 

My words were not addressed to you, but to those who still try to defend Thayer as non Unitarian, even though he was