Septuagint still perfect?

:laugh: :laugh:
OH, that is the funniest post on BB!!!

Peter Ruckman....

OH brother..

Yeah.. we believe that jerk!

no wonder you believe fairy tales.. you take the word of an idiot that believes in aliens.. and that blacks came from mud!

Quit posting junk!

 

Tim, you have a supposed copy from Origen's Hexapla, written about 250AD.

You do not have THE LXX, written 250BC.

 

If this isn't an attack, on my beliefs (fairy tales) I don't know what is.

Tim, [personal attack deleted]. I will guess you have never read any of his books, but perhaps have read David Cloud's stuff about him. Isn't it a bit crude to judge a man when you know nothing of him, except second hand material misquoted.

Does he believe in aliens? I have "Black is Beautiful" and he doesn't say it anywhere. It's a stupid book, full of stupid things, but whatever.

And yes, blacks came from mud. So did whites. And yellows, and reds and you and me. Dirt even.

Did you read Sam Gipp's article? Why are you so against it. I mean, if you are so solid in your beliefs, the article should post no problem for you to refute.

I think you get some kind of joy from being rude and mocking.

 

I am not attacking you.. but your beliefs that the LXX doesn't exist.

And as a minister of the Gospel, I am commanded to fight false doctrine.
You are espousing False Doctrine.

I don't know you, you may be a great person.
but your beliefs are way off of orthodox.

Sorry if you took my post as mocking you..
I am not mocking you, but your unfounded, beliefs that are dreamed up by men like the heretical Ruckman.

YOu will find on this board we require scholarly, orthodox references...
When you cite Ruckman, you have shown that you know nothing about scholarly positions.

BTW, I have read ruckman's stuff... Heresy... good only for bird cage lining, or firestarters...

He makes KJVOs cringe... because he is the worst of the worst...

Right beside G. A. Riplinger!

There is no use debating you.. if you believe men like Ruckman.
I am out of here.

When you accept orthodox church history, then come let us know.
But until then I consider you undebatable.

 

Tim, it's not even a doctrine. You can't call my belief that the LXX does not exist a false doctrine. It's not a doctrine at all. You can call it misguided, or you can mock me and say it's a fairy tale, but it's not false doctrine, because it's not a doctrine at all.

It's like, if you say "Fords are great" and I say "you are teaching a false doctrine, because clearly, Holdens are better" (sorry if you have no idea.. I'm Aussie).

It wasn't dreamed up by Ruckman. I posted a quote in my original that predated Ruckman by many years.

Please name the books by Ruckman you have read. I humbly ask you to prove your honesty and integrity. You say you have read his "stuff" but he has written over 200 books, so I am curious as to what you have read. I have not read all of his books. I own "Black is Beautiful", "Eternal Security", "Why I am not a Calvinist", "Hebrews Commentary", "Manuscript Evidence", "The God Called Preacher", "NT Church History Vol I & II", and a bunch of published sermon transcripts. Of those, I have read the ones in bold, and am reading the ones in italics.

From what I have seen, your attitude is not better than his. You call him a jerk because he is "unscholarly". He would call you a jerk for not believing the AV1611 is the word of God. I don't see a difference in attitudes.

Sorry that I am undebatable because I don't use "scholarly" references like the wonderful "Justin Martyr" who believed he was saved by his good works, and had no assurance of salvation, or the fabulous "Augustine" who believe the LXX was inspired and that baptism was neccesary for salvation.

 

“Give a man an open Bible, an open mind, a conscience in good working order, and he will have a hard time to keep from being a Baptist.”
A.T. Robinson

 

I said I read Ruckman's stuff.. http://www.kjv1611.org/BBB/Bulletin Download Page.htm
I wouldn't pay for his trash. Although I do have in my study at church one tract of his, (don't remember the name)

YOu owe me an apology for saying I said something that I didn't say...
NO WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THE AV1611 IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD!

And I demand an apology.

For you said, "He would call you a jerk for not believing the AV1611 is the word of God. I don't see a difference in attitudes."

But I have come to understand that you Ruckmanites have no respect for truth.. only your version of it.

The AV1611 is as much the word of God as the LXX.. even the AV1611 translator's agree with me.

You Ruckmanites must twist an distort history to the point that now you say the LXX didn't exist! Are you calling the KJV translators liars?

Again, I am not mocking you... Just your myths.

But you do owe me an apology for lying on me.

As soon as you apologize, I will leave this thread.

 

Well, when I say the AV1611 is the word of God, I mean it is THE word of God. As in THE only one. INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, INERRANT in all matters of faith and practice. I don't mean it contains the word of God, or is one of the words of God. I mean it is THE ONLY word of God today.

You do not believe this. You even said it then, when you said the mythical LXX has the same authority as the AV.

So while you may not agree with me, I didn't call you a liar, because you don't believe the AV1611 is THE word of God.

So you have read the Bible Baptist Bulletin. Which ones? Which articles out of the hundreds in them? I want to know why you think his work is trash, when I don't believe you have never read it, or given serious thought to it. I'm not saying you have to though, I just find your attitude to be divisive without reason. I've never read anything by James White, but I am not going to say it is all trash, because I don't know a thing about the man other than he is a Calvinist.

 

Well for starters, I had this one book marked because of the ridiculous article titled, "No Women in Heaven" where Ruckman twists scripture to come up with this little nugget:​

"This would mean that​

every saved woman in the
body of Christ will eventually
become a THIRTYTHREE-
AND-ONE-HALFYEAR-
OLD, SINLESS MALE​

(Phil. 3:20–21)."

Page 17 in this link:
http://www.kjv1611.org/BBB/2005/oct-05-c.pdf

And then says this at the end of the article...

"When in doubt, always
correct the Hebrew and
Greek texts with the infallible,
inerrant Holy Bible. It
hasn’t failed one time yet and
isn’t about to fail in the next​

500,000 years."


Now.. I will not debate anyone that thinks this man is intelligent enough to find his way out of a paper bag...

Anyone that thinks women will be turned into a man in Heaven, needs an education in proper bible hermeneutics...

And you take him seriously.. What's that say about you?

Debate over.

 

What does that have to do with the infallibility of the King James Bible. The debate was not about whether Ruckman has some strange beliefs. It was about the LXX, and somehow it got turned to the AV.

I don't worship the man. I already said his book "black is beautiful" is stupid. I don't agree with gap theory. And I don't agree with some of his so-called "nuggets".

And once again you resort to an ad hominin attack.

Tim, you may be a pastor, but your actions and manners are childish, at least the ones demonstrated in this forum environment.

God bless your ministry, but I pray you would find humility in your dealings, especially with people that you see as off the track.

EDIT:

As for the quote, you must understand the context. [forbidden term used] constantly refer to the "original greek", but as someone said earlier in this thread, they don't exist! There are no originals on earth today. The King James, we believe by faith, reads exactly as the original greek would, were it translated into English. Any differences in greek texts - stephanus, erasmus, nestles etc, should all be compared to the KJB, to see which one is correct.

 

What about in Japanese? Is it possible to have the only Word of God in Japanese? If so, by what Scriptural principles do I choose the version?

 

John, I realise this is a topic close to your heart.

It is possible to have a faithful translation in Japanese, as long as it is based on the King James Bible (or Stephanus TR at the least).

However, one must consider the biblical precedent. God's word in the language of the people at the time. We don't find any Egyptians complaining that God's word is not written in Egyptian. If they wanted to read it, they had to learn Hebrew. We don't find King Nebuchadnezzar complaining that God's word was not in his tongue. It was just accepted.

And then the world language became Greek, so we get the New Testament in the language of the Gentiles.

And now English.

To be blunt, I really don't want to spend a long time debating the issue of the perfect Bible in any language. It wasn't the point of the thread. The issue at hand was the existence of the LXX, which I said was mythical back on page 1.

 

I am going to close this thread if we can't stop debating the KJV issue. BOTH sides of the debate keep going back to it.

As the LXX, do you really believe Luke that if we don't have something today it never existed? You have provided no proof and no evidence that the LXX is a myth, only man ideas.

Proof, please.

 

Third time lucky I hope - I can't make you read it, but this is the third time I have posted this and no one has addressed it:

[spamming deleted - refer to one of the two previous postings of this article]

 

Okay. So your only 'proof' is an article by a guy who believes in weird black aliens? Why should we give this more credence than that?

How about a reliable trustworthy source? From what I have your guy is the only one I have seen who calls the LXX a myth

 

I'll not push the subject so as not to derail the thread. However, I do think my question was valid in light of the OP, which is about a non-English translation of the OT which many in its day believed to be inerrant. At any rate, I've never gotten from anyone an answer from the Bible to my question about choosing a version in Japanese--and you have not given me one either.

For the record, since you are new to the BB, I am involved in a Japanese NT translation from the Stephanus TR. :type:

PS Also for the record, I oppose Ruckman on the grounds that he is what our beloved KJV calls a "railer," saying vicious things about good men of God who disagreed with him such as my grandfather, John R. Rice. Railers are to be separated from, not studied and quoted (1 Cor. 5:11).

 

Say what??

Please!

So how come you are posting in a "debate" forum, on a subject you surely knew would be debated, if only due to the nature of the post, and that OP, which was yours, being only your first post on the Baptist Board, no less? And all your other posts, besides those on this thread, have all been on the "fashion statement" poll you also started?

To call your claim here "incredulous" is roughly equal to calling Noah's Ark a boat, IMO.

I'm perfectly willing to "cut a lot of slack" to any and all junior members, but this is somewhat akin to asking me for half a ball of the 16,000' balls of twine, I use in the baling of big round bales of hay, just so you can tie up one shoebox.

Ed