Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Well since I'm 18 and have not yet been to Seminary I do fairly rely on others.
18? I would have guessed much younger.
BTW you relied on Hoskier first I'm just letting everyone know Hoskier discredited all three mss you claim that he claimed were proof that Erasmus didn't copy from the Latin.
Uh, you seem to be having a reading comprehension problem.
You claimed that Erasmus translated the last 6 verses from the Vulgate.
I pointed out that was a myth.
You accused me of misrepresenting the facts. You then cut and pasted the statement by Euthymius which
agreed with me! Erasmus did
not translate from the Vulgate. He translated from a commentary written Lorenzo de Valla!
I said that Hoskier stated Erasmus translated from 141.
You accused me of misrepresenting the facts. You then posted another cut and past from Euthymius which, again,
agreed with me! He says that Hoskier
did make that claim.
So, please explain to my how your posting of Euthymius's agreements with me proves I "misrepresented the facts?"
The fact is Erasmus did copy from the Latin. Period. The person was addressing a KJVO Ruckmanite using your same ridiculous arguement.
The fact is that Erasmus did
not translate from the Vulgate.
And I don't know nor care who he was addressing. He was correct. Erasmus did not translate from the Vulgate and Hoskier did claim Erasmus had 141. How can my statement be "ridiculous" when I make it but "profound" when Euthymius makes the same statement?