Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Very typical response when confronted by such work. A man reasearches and writes out 3 detailed posts and all you can say is what you said. Very typical - very sad - you responded exactly how I expected you to.PaladinValer said:Bad history again.
Please give factual history instead of conjecture. The Septuagint is far older than any NT book.
Theophorus said:All I know is that my priest sells two in the book store, one is Brenton's, the only english one available I believe, but he uses something else, all in Greek. I do not believe it is based on Brenton's text because he has pulled it out to compare to Brenton's, and at times disapprovingly shook his head.
I'll have to check with him about it.
AVBunyan said:Very typical response when confronted by such work. A man reasearches and writes out 3 detailed posts and all you can say is what you said. Very typical - very sad - you responded exactly how I expected you to.
Sure can't wait to see the other responses.
Will Kinney is a KJV only - he just posted 3 detailed posts on the subject.Andyman_1970 said:What is the KJV only thought regarding the Septuagint?
Edial said:The Catholic Church decided to insert these book and pronounce them "inspired of God"... Ed
If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.hoser said:It is Martin Luther that pulled these books that were always in the Bible out, because they disagreed with his own theology. This is fact. Learn it.
I believe the AV to be inspired for several reasons:
1. The two lines (Egyptian [modern versions] and the Antioch line [AV}) read completely different they both (all modern versions vs. AV) cannot be inspired.
2. The preeminence that AV gives to the deity of Christ along with the consistent upholding of the doctrines of the faith whereas the modern versions are inconsistent and consistently attack the deity of Christ tons of documentation on this subject.
3. II Tim. 3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration I have a post on this subject posted here already so I will not go into detail here. But I believe the AV to be scripture so in order for it to be called scripture then it must be inspired again they all cannot be inspired for all read differently.
4. The impact the AV has had on the lives of sinners and history covered before. I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 and there was no AV1611 prior to 1611 but the texts the AV is based upon has been used and blessed by God prior to 1611 whereas the other line from Egypt has not been blessed just compare the fruits of both.
5. The fact that nobody has yet to prove a real error in the AV whereas there are many blunders and false doctrines taught by the modern versions my ex. On this forum has been Mic. 5:2 which nobody has sufficiently explained yet.
theend0218 said:My history is a bit rough, but I believe it was made in the 3rd and/or 2nd century BC for the Greek speaking Jews scattered about.
The dates of the translation are roughly correct. (The exact dates aren't known). I think the original translation was done so that the scrolls could be kept in the Great Library of Alexandria. However, the Greek translation was widely circulated and used by Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine.
There are many places where the Greek LXX and the Hebrew MT disagree. It was often thought that the LXX had errors in its translation. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that there were Hebrew texts that agreed with the Greek LXX. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the term LXX has been used to refer to this textual tradition in addition to the Greek translation of that tradition.
AVBunyan said:If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.
Yes, Rome always accepted those books but Bible-believing saints never did accept them as being anything other than historical or "interesting" readings. Bible-believing saints never accepted them as inspired scripture.
theend0218 said:AliOgg, don't feel bad. It's like learning a new language. The LXX references a Greek translation of the OT. The name, as posted, means 70 - you find it posted as The Septuagint also, which references The Seventy (but it might have been 72, depending on which version of the story you accept). The translation was supposedly made by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria. My history is a bit rough, but I believe it was made in the 3rd and/or 2nd century BC for the Greek speaking Jews scattered about. Hope this helps. Do a google search if you want or need more info.
AVBunyan said:If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.
JohnJones said:And also because JEROME, the CATHOLIC translator of the Latin Vulgate denied their inspiration but included them in the Vulgate for purely historical purposes, saying that the church forms no doctrine from them but they are used for edification and instruction in manner as well as understanding the Jews of Jesus' time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?