- Aug 6, 2005
- 17,496
- 1,568
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
First off the KJV came from the septuagint..
the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 editionGood Day, Renton
I agree with much of this.
Indeed some do still use the LXX.
You make some good points here, the NT writtings are indeed in Greek, and do appear to quote the LXX that is because they are both Greek.
If we were both to write a book on Windows Networking in english in some cases it would appear that we are quoting each other. When in fact we are not.
You said: in many different ways
"Knowing that the LXX was extensively used by the early believers"
But, you have shown no historical basis for this assertion.
The RCC PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION notes on the notion:
"There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonical”. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek — called the Septuagint — which was adopted by Christians.
Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included."
Much of your premise here is doubtfull at best, in that it lacks any historical basis.
The reading of the (Apoc) will not hurt any one agreed. I have read some of them, nor will the reading of the ECF's or J Calvin or Luther. They are usefull indeed the question is are they a source on which we are to base doctrine? Should they be viewed on the same level as the other 22-24 books of the jewish scriptures?
Not sure how you arrived at some date of 95 for the fixing of the Jewish canon??? Jesus held the the Jews to a collection of books during OT times, these books would have been well know to the Jews of His day.
Peace to u,
Bill
Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..
I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..
Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..
Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..
Umm yes seeing I have done so it is fair for you to assume it can be done.
To use a historical standard is neither a RC or Prots standard, it is an objective standard employed by many types of people. If you subjectivly belive it or not is not very important to the use of such standards, only goes to show standards of prove to determine facts some how escape you. As a result so do "facts".
I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..
The greek of the LXX is consistant with the Greek of the NT I have agreed with you, not sure what you point is ...
Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..
Does the words "no man takes my life I freely lay it down" ring any bells for you.
The fact of the matter is your assertion of the use of the LXX by early belivers, lacks historical basis even according to your own denomination.
Peace to u,
Bill
First off the KJV came from the septuagint..
the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition
Do you think protestants really should critisize Catholics on what is historical?? considering they follow theologys that came 1500 years after Christ. I really dont believe they have that position to do so..
I showed very accurate historical verses in my second post. If you look at the quotes of the verses in the NT, you will see that they are quoting from the greek septuagint..Re-read the bold.. the evidence is very bold that the apostles used to greek septuagint. Most of the preaching, espesially done by paul was not in hebrew, but in greek..
Secondly, I dont consider the people who crucified my Lord to be the SOLE authority of the OT..
Are you claiming the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint? Or simply the Vulgate has all the books in the Septuagint?
Another thing, no one would dispute that many quotes in the New Testament agree with the Septuagint, but it should also be noted that not all do so.
As far as not using the authority of those who crucified Jesus, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.
Marv
At who's request? Would Pilate have crucified Jesus had the Pharisee's not DEMANDED it?Are you claiming the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint? Or simply the Vulgate has all the books in the Septuagint?
Another thing, no one would dispute that many quotes in the New Testament agree with the Septuagint, but it should also be noted that not all do so.
As far as not using the authority of those who crucified Jesus, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.
Marv
The more reason for u to be silent then....u critise our protestant brethen and thier basis of private intepretation...have u no heart?
Umm yes seeing I have done so it is fair for you to assume it can be done.
To use a historical standard is neither a RC or Prots standard, it is an objective standard employed by many types of people. If you subjectivly belive it or not is not very important to the use of such standards, only goes to show standards of prove to determine facts some how escape you. As a result so do "facts".
Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined
Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..I was speaking from a level of hypocrisy. A child dosen't critize his father out of respect. The protestants shouldn't critize the catholics considering all they have given them..
Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?
Was Martin Luther crucified for you?
Was John Calvin?
Was Ellen White?
(before you attack the pope or bishops)
For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17)” (LS:177-178).
90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache
For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17) (LS:177-178).
Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined
Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..
Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?
Was Martin Luther crucified for you?
Was John Calvin?
Was Ellen White?
90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache
It is very clear in scripture that the word bishops, presbyters, and priests are in the bible.. I don't find anywhere where is says "pastors" except the very new versions.. The KJV and septuagint clearly lists this
Do you ask these same questions of your own denomination?
Over years, hundreds of years, theologys change and people change most due to secularism and due to the fact that when something is handed down over and over again it dosen't resemble at all what it used to be..This applys to everything. Because of pride and egoism everyone wants to have their views and theologys followed and thus the original is never seen as to what it was 2000 years ago.. Yes all pastors claim they talk by the holy spirit, but then why are there 33,000 denominations? The spirit dosen't divide and contradict itself, it is whole and one. not disjoined
Yes you have done it. but not according to any truth, its just your own view..I was speaking from a level of hypocrisy. A child dosen't critize his father out of respect. The protestants shouldn't critize the catholics considering all they have given them..
Just as St. Paul said "there are divisions among you" ..was paul cruficified for you?
Was Martin Luther crucified for you?
Was John Calvin?
Was Ellen White?
(before you attack the pope or bishops)
For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith" (Isaiah 60:17) (LS:177-178).
90 AD "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (Didache
Good Day, Renton
You have caught your self a BIG "RED FISH".
You have asserted that the LXX was used by the 12 and early believers, yet have failed to provide any historical proof for your assertion.
Thus it remains your assertion, as you have no basis to prove it. Your name it claim it history is just silly in light of the record.
You may be better off to bread that fish and bake it, not half baked like your assertion, but cook it all the way.
Peace to u,
Bill
You probably know that the Didache is a REJECTED book, the early Christians REJECTED it as NOT being Scripture. And you might also notice it says NOTHING about the Catholic denomination. Nor does it mention the Infallible Pope. And it doesn't mention the 4 DC books the Catholic denomination took out of the Bible. .
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?