Inerrancy finally disproved?

Alain said:

I have heard this before and I am trying to put my finger on exactly what texts in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint.

Because if this is true, then the objections to the deuterocanonicals found in the Septuagint are seriously damaged!

Do you have any specifics here?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

If I had to refute the argument I'd argue against #2, in that any work pronounced (by the inerrant discernment of the Catholic Church) as Scripture must of necessity require that any translations in the work are also inerrant.

Or am I taking the whole question too seriously?

 

MikeS

"the inerrant discernment of the Catholic Church" is NOT a logical argument or more exactly it cannot be used validate the logic of an argument (i.e. argument #2 is false)
and you will have to prove logically that "the discernment of the Catholic Church" is in fact inerrant

and that is the subject of another thread


Alain


that will not do

but keep digging


Alain </font>[/QUOTE]Fine, but my parenthetical aside as to how Scriptures might be pronounced inerrant doesn't preclude accepting #1 as true. I was just having a Catholic moment

 

The problem with his logic is this:

He's applied a truth about a translation *as a whole* (his '2') to individual, specific quotes from that translation (when he says "And if (1) and (3) are true then (2) is false"). His (2) as stated is true, but he's changed what (2) is talking about later in his logic, changing from the whole translation to specific phrases from that translation. In other words, although a translation as a whole may not be inerrant, individual verses or phrases inside that translation may still be inerrant. In yet other words, an imperfect translation as a whole does not mean every single phrase in that translation is faulty. Although the LXX is not perfect, where the NT quotes from the LXX, the LXX must be inerrant (even if different from the Hebrew) in those places. For if we believe the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, we must believe the Holy Spirit, as God, did not make mistakes an have the NT authors quote from errant portions of the LXX by mistake.

 

I have heard this before and I am trying to put my finger on exactly what texts in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint.

Because if this is true, then the objections to the deuterocanonicals found in the Septuagint are seriously damaged!

Do you have any specifics here?

</font>[/QUOTE]Bill

Donald Wayne Viney, the author of the "challenge" is only partly correct , more than half of all quotations and allusions to the OT are from the Septuagint. Since almost 900 total quotations and allusions of the OT are identified, it will be tedious for me to give you a complete list


according to the appendix of the GNT 4th edition (Greek New Testament)

you have for example Mattew 1:23 quoting Isaiah 7:14, 8:8-20 from the LXX
John 1:23 quoting Isaiah 40:3 form the LXX
Romans 11:9-10 quoting Ps 69:22-23 from the LXX

and so on

Alain </font>[/QUOTE]OK, I did not realize that was such a big task. It is an intriguing proposition, one that I have seen something like that before, and I have it somewhere.......here on my hard drive.

Thanks for our response,

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Not necessarily. Only in his opinion do they entail a logical contradiction.

This is where his logic falls apart. Whereas it is true, in that generally speaking no translation of the originals are inspired, it is not always true. Jesus, in some places quoted from the Septuagint. If Jesus accepted the Septuagint as the common Scripture of the day, who are we to deny that it was the Word of God, and thus inspired. Even if it all was not inspired, certainly the portions that were quoted by the various authors that quoted from it were inspired once they became inscripturated in our canon of Scripture. Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was a spurious book and definitely not inspired. But what Jude was led to quote by the Holy Spirit became inspired. Paul quoted Greek poetry. All the Greek poetry was not inspired, but that which Paul quoted became inspired once it became part of the canon of Scripture. Thus no matter where the source originally came from (Septuagint or not), if ended up in the New Testament as we have it today, it was inspired of God.

Looking at it from that point of view the following statements fall apart:

DHK