Septuagint still perfect?

God bless you John. As far as I know, there is no faithful japanese version, which is why I didn't recommend one. Japan needs a faithful Bible translation so God bless you as you continue in this much needed endeavor.

I have also not quoted from Dr Ruckman, nor have I studied him.

In the books that I have read about him though, the only things he ever says negative of other men are in relation to their beliefs regarding the Bible.

I could find several quotes where he says Dr Rice is a great man of God, a great soulwinner and a godly pastor.

God bless John.

 

As the moderator of our church, I'd happily entertain a motion to petition that the designation of LXX be amended to read the LXX plus two, or, in the alternative, the LXXII, and that we petition those in charge of Bible designations for such a change.

"Do I hear such a motion?"

Gotta' talk loud, this evening, as the sound system is on the blink!

Ed

 

Once again with the aliens.. I think you'll find they are grey, not black. The book isn't even about aliens, but whatever, David Cloud must be right..

And the article was by Sam Gipp, not Ruckman, and Sam Gipp does not believe in aliens.

Did you read it? I ask you to refute it. If it's so wacky and farfetched and from out of space, then it should be easy to refute the CONTENT of the article, without referring to aliens, who definitely didn't write the LXX. Why is everyone dodging it.

Surely the words of such an unscholarly man can be refuted with some cold hard FACTS.

Why would Sam Gipp not be a trustworthy source? Are you calling the man a liar?

 

No one is dodging you. Your article (by Gipp, apologies) is so far fetched that is is impossible to argue. It is based on the fact that we don't have an original so it must be a myth. No one can refute what the article says because no one can produce an original LXX. That is all that would satisfy you.

Do you believe that unless something exists today it never existed?

 

I'll post it here again. The parts I highlight are not based on the fact that nothing existed, but the Bible, and History.

Refute them, or admit you cannot.

[Spamming deleted - do not repeat the same post over and over]

 

The only refutation you will accept is a complete pre-Christ LXX which no one can produce (that is, after all, the gist of the article you have been spamming us with).

You keep ignoring my question. Do you think because we don't have a copy of something today it never existed?

 

I've never seen a quote where Ruckman calls John R. Rice a great man of God. But on p. 16 of his little pamphlet "Why Psalm 12:6, 7 Is a Promise of the infallible Preservation of Scripture," he calls him a "milk sop," with "Biblical theology" being far over his head. On p. 6 of The Alexandrian Cult he calls him a cultis. This is railing, forbidden by the Bible.

Ruckman is particularly bad with his railing in his commentaries. Just glance through them and you'll see. I don't have any nowadays, but years ago I looked through his commentary on Matthew, I believe it was, and found examples of his name-calling of my grandfather. Friend, if you want to defend the KJV, there are far better writers than Ruckman.

 

Errors?, lets call them differences.

NT quotes often conform to the LXX

In the following verses compare the OT to the NT verses
(you might have to compare various versons as well, some "correct" the OT to the NT quotes.)

Hebrews 2.6-8/ Psalm 8.4-6

Hebrews 10.5-7/ Psalm 40.6-8

Hebrews 11.21/ Genesis 47.31

Matthew 21.16/ Psalm 8.2

Romans 10.20/ Isaiah 65.1

Rob

 

In any relationship I start out with that information, and also throw it out occasionally on the BB. The reasons are: (1) By that I try to help people not to embarass themselves with unwise statements about him. It happens! (2) On the other hand some people are really blessed by the connection, my relationship with my grandfather, since I knew him very well (lived with him, worked for him). I don't quite understand that, but there it is.

:laugh: That's half the fun of the Baptist Board--you never know what is going to happen.

 

What does the 'red herring' of "the KJVO" have to do with any of the LXX, or 'fashion police,' the OP, or the thread, aside from the direction in which some, perhaps even you, as the OP, are attempting to 'take it' by 'hijacking' it?

Is is simply somewhat less than forthright, for you to make a couple of the statements you have made, including that you have no desire for debate, when you started two threads, in debate threads, on subjects you surely must have known would be controversial, in your initial 6 posts on the BB, where you have been around for only three days. And you have yet to reach 20 posts, 17 to be exact.?? That works out to more than 1 out of 9, or >10%.

By contrast, I have been on the BB for nearly 3 years with over 7K posts (Yes, I have lost a few hundred in the board 'reformatting' and the deleting of some entire threads, so I have, in fact, made over 7K!), and to my recollection, I have started far fewer than 10 threads in 2 years, 9 1/2 mos. in debate forums. And I have not even implied that I do not wish to debate, for if and when I do not, mostly due to a lack of time, I simply keep out of a thread. Would some 'math whiz' here like to figure the percentage of say, 10 out of 7287 posts, for me, on this?? (I can assure you it is < .2%, or <.002, but I do not know the exact figure it would be.)

And with all respect due, I used one particular copy of the KJV, with more than 25 years of my own irreplaceable notes, including most that I had from my Bible College days in it, as my Bible for more years than you have been alive, according to your profile (What in the world does "a brown dog" have to do with anything??), until that copy was removed from my cab one evening, apparently, as it disappeared when I was working, and I have not seen it since.
And I thought enough of that King James Version, to go out and get me a new one (Unfortunately, the exact edition I had used was no longer available anywhere, at any price, at that time, and I tried very hard to find one, although granted, that was in my pre-internet days.), since unlike Dr. Jack van Impe, I don't have over 40% of the Bible memorized, so I always need one in front of me. I've now used "my new Bible" for more than 10 years, as well (and I assure you that it no longer looks very new), although I do wish I could make the print in it grow ever larger.

As to topics, I would say post what you wish. If it is inappropriate, the Moderators and/or Administrators will take care of it, if they think this, from what I have seen.

Just don't be surprised if and when someone responds, and may disagree, in a debate forum, especially when rash and/or "ill-informed" statements are made, since this is not a Bible College, or anywhere else where you are teaching in any 'lecture class.' I have not seen that any "brownie points" are awarded simply for someone agreeing with another, here, so post away, but just be prepared to "duck incoming."

Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Ed

 

You might also mention Lk. 4:16-20, where Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah, the passage that is found in Isa. 61:1-2a, where the words Jesus read do not conform exactly to any other known, extant, wording in the Hebrew, LXX, or any other known version of Isaiah.

Certainly the wording is not the same, as recorded in Luke, with those in Isaiah, in any English version that I have ever seen, yet Jesus here read them, unlike in some other Scriptural instances where the writer summed them up. Had he not have read them verbatim, while appearing to, He surely would have been challenged in this, as He calls the words, "Scripture."

Ed

 

Of course they conform to the "LXX" - Origen had the NT on his tabletop as he wrote his greek translation, 200 years after the NT had been written.

For those of you who didn't read what I posted before, the LXX did not exist prior to 250AD, and the copy most people refer to is in Origen's Hexapla, which was a translation done by ONE man, not Seventy Two.

 

You can repeat it all you want - you are simply wrong. You are repeating the research of one other man who researches with a preconceived bias.

 

And may the wind always be at your back. Yes this is a good point.

The LXX of course is not perfect especially when you compare Judith to historical events.

The ECF did believe it to be the inspired word of God and what books were reviewed by the bereans? Obviously all scripture referred to OT and possible all the books of the LXX. Other sources are referred to in the NT that are outside the LXX such as 1 Enoch and possibly (very likely) the Assumption of Moses. Does this researcher also hold to the "trail of blood" theory as well?

 

The LXX was not perfect - good point - it was like any other translation.

 

May the road rise to meet you. Lukasaurus believes that the 1611 version of the KJB was inerrant according to his picture. JSo I guess this would not be acceptable to him.

 

So you admit even the original greek and hebrew is in error?

Sorry sir (I had maam here, but checked your profile and it said you were a pastor. Sorry, got confused with your avatar image ), but Paul would disagree with you. Translations can be perfect.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22 Records what Paul said... in greek!

So either Acts 22 is not inspired, even in the original greek, or it is perfectly possible to have a perfect translation.