1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV vs. Modern Version - II

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pastor Larry, Nov 16, 2001.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    Larry, in order to post sensibly you must understand this thread grew out of another thread with a similar name,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I understand that. In fact, the quote of yours which I posted came from another thread I believe. However, I am quite capable of posting sensibly. It seems you that is missing the point. You want ms evidence for apostolic or pre apostolic LXX. Once again you ignore my evidence of the Judean desert ms of Hab dated from the first century BC or the first century AD, either of which predates your 150AD date. In addition, I cited Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, and Philo which all give evidence that the LXX existed during the apostolic and pre apostolic era. There is also the evidence of Aristeas. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the LXX existed.

    Perhaps you are simply questioning whether it was the version that was quoted from in the OT as opposed to denying it existed. I have asked several times what your point/concern is. What is it that you are trying to prove here? Is there something at stake that you feel is being compromised by the existences of an apostolic or preapostolic LXX?

    I guess the summation is simple:
    1. There is ample evidence of a preapostolic LXX.
    2. There is no firm evidence that the NT quotes from it; by the same token there is no evidence that the NT did not quote from it.
    3. There seems every reason to believe that the NT did quote from the LXX. There seems no legitimate reason to believe that they did not quote from the LXX.

    I just am not sure what your point is Thomas. The evidence has been hashed over and over again and if you want to clarify what your point is, we can go from there. If you do not wish to clarify your point, that is fine.

    BTW, thanks for the little slam that I am not posting sensibly. I think you know better.
     
  2. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    I note that both of you are making another serious error. You are attempting to apply textual transmission principles to the Greek translation of the OT which only apply to the inspired Hebrew OT.

    If you treat the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT the same way, you either make the error of the Modernist who believes the transmission of bible texts is the same as the transmission of secular texts, and thus denies the preservation of God, or you make the error of the most radical of the KJVOs who try to apply the principles of inspiration and preservation to a translation. If you do the former you are a Modernist, and if you do the latter, you are a heretic and cultist, for that is what both of you call the KJVOs who are doing with the KJV exactly what you are trying to do with the LXX.
     
  3. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    I just am not sure what your point is Thomas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My point is exactly what it always was. I will post it one more time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am saying what I have been saying all along. No Apostolic or pre-Apostolic Greek OT MSS exist to prove the NT quotes from a Greek OT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am still waiting for anyone to post the Apostolic or pre-Apostolic MSS which is unambiguously quoted in the NT.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I note that both of you are making another serious error. You are attempting to apply textual transmission principles to the Greek translation of the OT which only apply to the inspired Hebrew OT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What did I say that makes you think this?

    I have said nothing of the kind. I am not making an error on this point. I am not treating the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT the same way. I said nothing that would legitimately lead you to believe that and I have not seen Philip say anything of the sort. I have no idea where you are getting this.

    As I previously said, there is every reason to believe that the NT quotations are from the LXX. There is no reason not to believe that. That does not equate the LXX with the MT. That is a non sequiter. The precise quotations you are asking for do not exist. The evidence for a preapostolic LXX is virtually unquestioned.

    On a side issue, as I have previously said, you appear to be very inconsistent in your argumentation here when compared with your NT position. You still have yet to explain it and I would like to see it.
     
  5. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    As I previously said, there is every reason to believe that the NT quotations are from the LXX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And your reasons for believing that are based on what extant OT Greek MSS? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no reason not to believe that. The evidence for a preapostolic LXX is virtually unquestioned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And this evidence would be found in what OT Greek MSS? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You still have yet to explain it and I would like to see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have posted my position several times. One last time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am saying what I have been saying all along. No Apostolic or pre-Apostolic Greek OT MSS exist to prove the NT quotes from a Greek OT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As you either will not or can not stick to the discussion of OT Greek MSS which date to the Apostolic or pre-Apostolic period which are quoted in the Greek NT, I am locking this thread.

    [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
  6. Matthew Lootens

    Matthew Lootens New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,
    Hi, I am Paula's husband and I read the e-mail you wrote her. Here are some scripture that I hope reprove and edify you. When you asked her to diagree with our Pastor without telling him just to see how he responds.
    Luke 12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

    nullEphesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. 14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

    And we can have this hope and joy.

    1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

    And Brother, some food for thought.. [​IMG]

    1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

    Well Brother we Love you and hope the best for you. Take care.

    [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Matthew Lootens ]
     
  7. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    If one tenth of the effort put forth here was applied to soulwinning the pastors here would be so busy discipling new converts they wouldn't have to post here to show people their ability to research useless facts.

    One either accepts God's Word by faith or goes about to establish that which he agrees with. The KJV worked fine until some "scholar" that had no discernment couldn't read the Bible in his natural state so set about to write a book he could understand, devoid of many precious truths found in the true Word of God.

    Title: The Holy Bible, King James Version


    1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)
    14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    1 Corinthians 2:15 (KJV)
    15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
    1 Corinthians 2:16 (KJV)
    16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


    It's in the book!

    Get out of your study and go talk to some lost soul about Christ!! This thread has gone on far too long, nothing is being accomplished except wasting precious time that could be better utilized seeking the lost. Christ gave up chow time to win a women to the Lord, don't you suppose you fellas could spend less time trying to impress other with your studiousness and more time obeying God?

    Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
    19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.!!

    11Timothy1:I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
    2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
    3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.



    Ernie

    [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]
     
  8. livin'intheword

    livin'intheword New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ernie said:
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One either accepts God's Word by faith or goes about to establish that which he agrees with. The KJV worked fine until some "scholar" that had no discernment couldn't read the Bible in his natural state so set about to write a book he could understand, devoid of many precious truths found in the true Word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Amen Ernie!

    Paula
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    I note that both of you are making another serious error. You are attempting to apply textual transmission principles to the Greek translation of the OT which only apply to the inspired Hebrew OT.

    If you treat the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT the same way, you either make the error of the Modernist who believes the transmission of bible texts is the same as the transmission of secular texts, and thus denies the preservation of God, or you make the error of the most radical of the KJVOs who try to apply the principles of inspiration and preservation to a translation. If you do the former you are a Modernist, and if you do the latter, you are a heretic and cultist, for that is what both of you call the KJVOs who are doing with the KJV exactly what you are trying to do with the LXX.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't know what your point is, but it does raise a new question? There were obviously many streams of Hebrew documents by the time Jesus was on the earth. Which one of those were inspired? I think this takes away most of the other argument of the last paragraph above.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,

    My reason for believing that the NT quotations are from the LXX is based on the fact of extreme similarity between what we know the LXX now says … Unless you are going to suggest that someone changed it over time to make it say what it says now.

    You hold a position that is in the extreme minority of scholars and I was questioning why. (In fact, I do not know any scholars who hold your position.) The best you can come up with is “there is no extant ms evidence for it” until much later. Yet when you are questioned about certain NT passages for which there is no extant mss evidence until much later, you assert that it is valid.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PL: You still have yet to explain it and I would like to see it. TC: I have posted my position several times. One last time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you will go back and look at the context from which you ripped my sentence, you will realize that you did not answer the question I asked you to explain. You have taken it out of its context and made it refer to something that it does not. To save you the trouble of looking back to the last page, I will post the whole context here. Notice the first four words, in case you don't notice that I have changed subjects

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On a side issue, as I have previously said, you appear to be very inconsistent in your argumentation here when compared with your NT position. You still have yet to explain it and I would like to see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Please do not take my quotes out of context. I did not ask you to explain your position on the LXX. I asked you to explain your inconsistency between your position on the LXX and your position on the NT. If you do not want to answer that question, just say so.

    I have no problem sticking to the discussion of extant evidence for the LXX in the pre and apostolic times. I have listed the evidence (see above for it). I have also said that it does not contain the portion that was quoted. So what? As I asked before (which you still haven't answered), are you denying that the LXX existed or are you simply suggesting that the NT did not quote from it?
     
Loading...