KJV vs. Modern Version - II

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:



This would be a good statement had it been said in love, yet it is a self righteous statement as it was said otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the way, in all fairness I probably do owe you an explanation. This message was for Dr. Cassidy. If he holds no guilt in his heart then it can be taken honestly and with integrity.

The Bible also speaks of judging with righteousness, so if you wish to judge me for something you know little about, then why are you not judging Dr. Cassidy for his personnal attacks towards brothers who disagree with him? Note: This is not a judgment of Dr. Cassidy--just an interesting observation of your "choice" of judgment. You see, as humans we are unfair; so therefore it is best to follow the Bible and leave the judgment to the Lord.

By the way, YOU would never say anything that could be considered sinful or a personal attack would you?

Originally posted by Joey M:
"A blatant lie of course. I would expect better from you phillp. Just because two Bibles read pretty much the same does not mean they were copied from each other, just that the translations in those"

Nah, calling a person a liar is immune to personnal attacks, too, especially if you feel you think you are right and the other person is wrong.

I will say something about being right or being wrong. That is the reason we discuss and debate subjects. If ANY of us, including professors were right at least 51% of the time, they could go to Vegas and become millionaires (if Christians believed in gambling -- just making a point.) What good is it if only three people on a thread are right and everybody else is wrong--we might as well shut the thread down or open a school and quit posting to a board.

I am not trying to stir up trouble here, but point out that these petty bickerings and personnal attacks permeate this particular subject quite extensively and as brothers in Christ, they need to stop. So, don't judge what I say and I won't be petty and judge what you say. All of these posts, mine included, start sounding like a bunch of third graders because "I'm right and you can't be because my professor said so, or a book I read said so. . . "

. . . Get my point?

Sorry to start all of this rambling, but between abuse of powers and petty bickering this whole business is getting ridiculous and unChristianlike and I will say that I too include myself in that, but let's all start acting like brothers in Jesus instead of third graders.

I am going to drop this subject now and if you and your brothers wish to continue to hash what I said, then you can answer for it.
God Bless and have a good turkey day.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
Again, You have no proof that your LXX is strictly from 300 AD. (Speculation, pure speculation. &lt;--see I have a sense of humor.) I gave you my proof in the fact that the KJV and LXX use the very same words so often in the New Testament that it is clear and obvious that the LXX existed in Jesus time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have posted the MSS evidence for the LXX. Once again I ask you, if you have any additional evidence, please post it. If not, just admit there is no pre-Apostolic MSS of the Greek OT except as I have already indicated. All the hyperbole and verbiage will not change the facts that the only pre Apostolic MS of a Greek OT is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which is never quoted in the NT.

You say, "KJV and LXX use the very same words" - well, not quite. The KJV is in English and the LXX is in Greek. And both the KJV and the LXX MSS date in the post-Apostolic era. The LXX from 150-750AD and the KJV from 1611AD.

 

You have a good way of throwing an argument to where it sounds like the person speaking does not know what they are talking about. The fact is, and I'm sure you should know this is that I am talking about Byzantine documents used in the translation of the KJV AND the LXX ---- BOTH IN GREEK. How many chapters will I need to provide for you to call it "proof"?

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
How many chapters will I need to provide for you to call it "proof"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just provide me with one MS (other than Ryland #458), its catalog number, and where it is kept, of a pre-Apostolic Greek OT. Or even a contemporary of the Apostles will do. Just one.

 

Hi, We all know that Christians talk back and forth about what version is the True Word of God. If you notice that just gets us away from scripture, and I think that’s what Satan wants us to do. Some say the NIV is the Word of God, some say the KJV is the Word of God, and it goes on and on. The individual is saved if, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9 they are are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. So why don't we just compare the scriptures and let the Holy Spirit do the convicting. Believers are one body and we shouldn't be dividing ourselves. As the old saying goes, Divide and Conquer. We're here to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" Mark 16:15

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Matthew Lootens ]

 

AMEN! You win the smartest post for the day!

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Have you ever heard of slandering someones reputation in others eyes with no just cause?
Phillip, back up, take a deep breath and "put a little love in your heart."

Paula

 

We can have all hope and confidence in this.
Proverbs 12:19 "The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment"
David has a good prayer, "Lead me in thy truth, and teach me; for thou art the God of my Salvation; on thee do I wait all the day"

As brothers and sisters in Christ we must try and edify each other. Romans 14:19
"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

God's Speed and have fun..

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
&lt;snipped a long rehash of the MSS evidence I already posted&gt;

Thomas apparently would have us believe that great similarity between the OT quotes in the NT and the LXX is a huge coincidence rather than causal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, what Thomas believes is that, due to the lack of pre-Apostolic LXX MSS evidence we have no idea if they were quoteing an existing Greek OT, translating on the fly, or whatever. We can't prove the NT quotes the LXX for there is no pre-Apostolic or Apostolic Greek OT MSS extant we can point to and say "See, they are the same." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thomas, are you denying the existence of a BC LXX? Are you simply saying it can’t be proven? Are you saying that Christ quoted from something other than the LXX? What point are you trying to make and what are its implications?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am saying what I have been saying all along. No Apostolic or pre-Apostolic Greek OT MSS extist to prove the NT quotes from a Greek OT.

 

Never mind.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Well, to be honest I don't feel like digging through my extensively unorganized library of old manuscript information to provide an answer to one person who disbelieves what his own college teachers believed, but I will make a quote from Josh McDowells "Evidence that demands a verdict vol ii" (Oh, NO here we go!!!)

To summarize parts I will place a "*" before lines I summarize to save space. If there is no "*" it is quoted directly.

Here goes:

*There was originally an argument many years *ago regarding the LXX comparison with the *Masoretic Text (MT) because of differences *in Divine names.
*In 1914 J Skinner even argued for this in a *book called "The Divine Names in Genesis" *where he quoted that in over 300 cases *there were only 8 or 9 differences between *the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan texts(Whoa -- my comment -- Isn't this interesting when looking at the MV's?) *Anyway, They thought that this put the *issue to rest.
*Later, with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and other documents Harrison speaks of how the Dead Sea Scrolls have strengthened the opinion that there was possibly more variation of divine names in the original text than the MT allows:" That there were at least three distinct families of Hebrew manuscripts in existence in the pre-Massoretic period has been demonstrated convincingly as a result of the manuscript discoveries at Qumran, and in particular from frqgments recovered from 4Q thereby confirming the opinion that there was considerably more variety in the text of early Pentateuchal manuscripts than was the case with the MT itself. Since the latter has traditionally been used as the basis of documentary analysis in view of the fact that it was regarded as the "fixed" text, it is interesting to speculate as to what might have happened to the entire Graf-Wallhausen theory had one or more pre-Massoretic texts been availalble for the use of 19th century literary critics. etc."
I sound like I am arguing with my own theories, but listen to the following:
"Harrison speaks about some of the textual evidence at Qumran "which shows that it was eminently possible for the translators of the LXX version to have had several manuscript families of the Pentateuch at their disposal, whose nature and contents were by no means identical in all respects with those of the Massoretic tradition."

Now here is the point to all of this, these same scholars say that the LXX is a B.C. document and scholars MUST pay attention to this document as having variations in scripture that was in existence (OT) that is older than the Masoretic Text. I am not going to argue the LXX dating issue because that has been settled by most high ranking Biblical Scholars and is therefore a "non-issue".

Now let me quote from Werner Keller (translated by William Neil)1956Chapter 1 Palestine on Mare Nostrum--A province of the Roman Empire-- Greek cities on the Jordon, etc.
"In the wide circle of countries which surround Mare Nostrum from North Africa and Spain to the shores of Asia Minor, the will of Rome, now mistress of the world, reigned supreme. After the disappearance of the great Semitic empires of the Fertile Crescent, Palestine was drawn into the new world and shared its destinies. Roman occupation troops enforced the will of Rome in a land that was ruled and exploited by men who were likewise nominees of Rome.
Life in the Roman Empire took on more and more the stamp of Greece; Roman civiliazation was to a large extent Greek civilization. Greek was the WORLD language which united ALL the subject peoples of the East
Anyone wandering through Palestine at the turn of the eras might have imagined he was in Greece. Across the Jordan lay out-and-out Greek cities. The "ten Cities" of the gospels took Athens as their model: they had temples that were sacred to Zeus and Artemis; they had their theater, their pillared forum, their stadium, their gymnasium, and baths. Greek in architecture as well as in the habitsof their citizens were likewise Caesarea, the seat of Pilate's government.......likewise Jericho" It goes on and on how the cities and people under the Roman control (ESPECIALLY THE JEWS) took on the Greek language and used it extensively in their writing and speaking.

I think this should be self explanatory. If it is not. Why are we arguing about the existence of a Greek Old Testament in Jesus' time period when the New Testament (minus maybe Mathew) were all written in Greek? If the Hebrews were that devout to their language they would have written it in Hebrew. Note that Christians wanted to spread the gospel -- along with the old testament to the world. To do this, Greek was required. It was also required for the Diaspara Jews to understand because they did NOT understand Hebrew. This is the reasoning for the writing of the LXX by JEWS in Alexandria before the time of Christ.

 

Easton's Revised Biblical Dictionary concerning the Septuagint: Note number 3 at the bottom. I will also be providing in a later post an exact list of the number of quotations from the LXX in the New Testament (which also includes the number of quotations from the other Greek manuscripts.) . . . quite interesting material since it provides relatively solid proof that the LXX was present and being utilized by the New Testament authors. Therefore, this leaves the realm of a "convoluted theory" and becomes "proof".


The Greek Versions.
a. The oldest of these is the Septuagint, usually quoted as the LXX. The origin of this the most important of all the versions is involved in much obscurity. It derives its name from the popular notion that seventy-two translators were employed on it by the direction of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and that it was accomplished in seventy-two days, for the use of the Jews residing in that country. There is no historical warrant for this notion. It is, however, an established fact that this version was made at Alexandria; that it was begun about 280 B.C., and finished about 200 or 150 B.C.; that it was the work of a number of translators who differed greatly both in their knowledge of Hebrew and of Greek; and that from the earliest times it has borne the name of "The Septuagint", i.e., The Seventy. "This version, with all its defects, must be of the greatest interest,
1. as preserving evidence for the text far more ancient than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts;
2. as the means by which the Greek Language was wedded to Hebrew thought;
3. as the source of the great majority of quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament.

 

Still not one skrap of manuscript evidence to support your assertion. It is just as I said in my former post "All the hyperbole and verbiage will not change the facts that the only pre Apostolic MS of a Greek OT is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which is never quoted in the NT."

All frosting and no cake. All fluff and no stuff. All gravy and no potatoes. All talk and no action.

 

Pastor Larry, This is okay now. I have learned something that I never understood before:
The Pentateuch must not have been written by Moses and the rest of the Old Testament is in question (Especially anything related to King David) BECAUSE from that time period there is:

"Still not one skrap of manuscript evidence to support your assertion All frosting and no cake. All fluff and no stuff. All gravy and no potatoes. All talk and no action."

Since there is no direct documentation, we must assumpe that it is all hyperboyle and just some documents written around the BC/AD era change, but it really is worthless because there is not one s**** of manuscript evidence to support the assertion that Moses ever even lived.

See, even I have a sense of humor. Have a good weekend everybody!

 

Just quoting another questionable scholar: "Bible History--Old Testament" Alfred Edersheim originally published 1876-1887 in seven volumes (mine is a complete unabridged 1995 copy.

Page 50
Chapter 10:

.....We have, in fact, five books of Moses in three different forms before us. First, we have the original Hebrew Text of the Old Testament; next there exists a translation of it in Greek, completed long before the time of our Lord, which was commonly used by the Jews at the time of Christ, for which reason also it is generally quoted in the New Testament"

. . . He goes on to explain why it is called LXX then changes the subject. Maybe no manuscript proof, just more theological scholarly evidence.

 

Just another scholar/pastor who writes about the LXX. Strange, if this information is false, it is sure getting around the Christian circles.

From Reverend Raymond Shockley pastor of Keywest church of God. (Okay, Okay, so he's not a Baptist.) Quote from his website:

"Ptolemy Philadelphus has a lot in common with the Philadelphian Church. It was a church that had kept the Word and that was their strength. The redeeming quality of Philadelphus was that he set the Jews that were in his kingdom free. He paid their masters silver to buy their freedom. His father’s name was Ptolemy Soter. "Soter" means a deliverer, God or Christ - Savior. That made Philadelphus a type of son of God who saves and delivers. It is from him the Antichrist steals. Ptomley Philadelphus wants to have the Bible of the Jews translated into Greek, the language of the common man of that day. He requested the High Priest of Israel, Eleazar, to send an authentic copy of the Mosaic law and the men to translate it into the Greek language. Seventy-two men were sent. Their finished work was called the Septuagint version of the Bible. This version of the Old Testament rendered the scriptures intelligible to a vast number of people. The Septuagint is considered one of the greatest fruits of the Greek conquest.



When the Church started to assemble the canon of scripture, the Greek speaking churches adopted the Septuagint together with that of the Koine Greek New Testament as their scriptures. The Septuagint is still the official Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church. It is also used by biblical scholars to understand how the Old Testament may have been interpreted anciently. It is also the version of the Jewish Bible most used by the writers of the New Testament. It was the "King James Bible" of that day and remains the Bible of the East."

Surprisingly, he is a KJVO. Note his comment about scholars using it to understand how the OT may have been interpreted anciently!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Still not one skrap of manuscript evidence to support your assertion. It is just as I said in my former post "All the hyperbole and verbiage will not change the facts that the only pre Apostolic MS of a Greek OT is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which is never quoted in the NT."

All frosting and no cake. All fluff and no stuff. All gravy and no potatoes. All talk and no action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You and I both know that manuscript evidence is impossible due to loss of valuable papyri over the years. But, you know that, the argument is no different than the illustration I used about Moses. It is an impossibility that you are aware of and no different than me asking you to "prove" Moses wrote Genesis using original manuscripts. This is not a fair argument since no answer can be proven either way with original manuscripts. In order to provide the only "proof" possible, I will start a list of the places where quotations were made and where those quotations originated. Just give me some time to dig up my files.

Based on the above, Dr. Cassidy, it looks like in this case, based on the majority of Bible Scholars that, you are simply ---- wrong -------- .

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Thomas,
May I quote from a previous post of yours:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Larry, in order to post sensibly you must understand this thread grew out of another thread with a similar name, which also grew out of another thread on another topic. If you will go back to my original post on the subject you will see that I said, "The 'Septuagint Papyri' is a collection of about 30 papyrus fragments bearing portions of the OT in Greek. All but one of these date between 150 and 750 AD. The exception is the Ryland Papyrus #458, dated about 150 BC, containing portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy in Greek"

I then noted that "The earliest extant complete MSS of the LXX are Codex B, Codex Aleph, Codex A, and Codex C. These were written between 350 and 500 AD."

As you can see from the original quote, prior to its being cut and pasted several times, the 350 AD date refers to the complete Greek OT as contained in the major codices. I clearly included the earlier fragments in the dates 150 - 750 AD.

And, as you can cleary see from my subsequent posts, I have asked repeatedly for any Apostolic or Pre-Apostolic MSS evidence to support the assertion that the NT quotes from what you call the LXX. So far, that evidence has been conspicuous by its absence! A lot of talk and dancing, but still no MSS evidence. I will wait a few more hours, and if such MSS evidence is not offered, I will close this thread.

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]